Judge recuses self from lawyer’s disbarment case

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has recused herself from hearing Stephen C. Woodruff’s request for the federal court to decline imposing on him the local courts’ order disbarring him from the practice of law in the CNMI.

In an order on Monday, Manglona said her husband, John A. Manglona, is a justice of the CNMI Supreme Court and sat on the panel that decided Woodruff’s appeal.

Manglona said the federal judge who hears Woodruff’s motion will decide whether to impose on Woodruff the same disbarment order imposed by the CNMI Supreme Court. This process is called “reciprocal discipline.”

“In order to avoid a reasonable appearance of partiality, I must recuse myself in this matter,” Manglona said.

She directed the federal court’s clerk to reassign the case to a designated judge or refer the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for reassignment.

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman ordered Woodruff’s disbarment in June 2013 for 44 violations of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Woodruff appealed, asking the CNMI Supreme Court to reverse Wiseman’s order. The CNMI Supreme Court affirmed Wiseman’s order last week.

On Monday, Woodruff informed the federal court about the CNMI high court’s decision. He also filed a motion, requesting the federal court to enter an order declining to impose reciprocal discipline.

In his motion, Woodruff said if the question of reciprocal discipline is not now decided in his favor, he suggests that proceedings in federal court be stayed for 120 days in order to allow him to seek rehearing in the CNMI Supreme Court or review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Woodruff said justice pro tem Herbert Soll, who issued a dissenting opinion, was concerned about the “drastic” consequences of affirming the Superior Court’s default disbarment order “based on unproven allegations.”

Woodruff said it is uncontroverted that there was absolutely no proof by disciplinary counsel of anything at all in the Superior Court proceedings.

“There was nothing but representations of disciplinary counsel, who was ultimately disqualified from prosecuting the case,” he said.

Woodruff said reciprocal discipline is appropriate only where the discipline imposed is supported by evidence sufficient to satisfy the duty of the court to exercise the care due such questions.

“Since there was no actual evidence at all of misconduct in the Superior Court, there was insufficient proof of misconduct, and reciprocal discipline should be declined,” he said.

Woodruff said imposition of reciprocal discipline would impose a grave injustice on him.

He cited Soll’s statement in his dissent that “disbarment is a drastic remedy that deprives attorneys of their livelihood.”

Woodruff said he has been unable to practice in CNMI courts for more than three years now since interim suspension was imposed in 2013.

He cited another Soll statement that “assuming the truth of the allegations, which generally regard an inattention to his legal practice, Woodruff may be deserving of an opportunity to rehabilitate himself.”

Woodruff said reciprocal discipline would deny him the ability to demonstrate that whatever problems may have existed in his practice previously have been corrected.

He said there were many due process violations in the CNMI Bar Disciplinary Committee and Commonwealth courts relative the disciplinary proceedings against him.

He believes that the CNMI Supreme Court deprived him of due process of law when it arbitrarily struck 38 percent of his brief, including 74 percent of his argument.

Woodruff also believes he was denied due process when procedural motions he brought—of a type regularly granted in the ordinary case—were denied.