Ex-judge is sanctioned, told to take, pass exam

The CNMI Supreme Court on Wednesday sanctioned former Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama after it found clear and convincing evidence of violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

In a nine-page slip opinion penned by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, the High Court said the most appropriate sanctions against Lizama are continuing legal education and assessment of costs and expense.

Demapan said that before Lizama resumes practicing law, if he chooses to do so, he must take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and achieve a passing score. He must also reimburse the Judiciary for the costs of his disciplinary action.

Demapan said the High Court does not wish to minimize Lizama’s transgressions, but it does not also believe that he is unfit to serve on the bench or as a practicing attorney.

“Now that this court has informed him of his errors, Lizama should be allowed to continue to serve the Commonwealth in whatever way he so chooses,” Demapan noted.

Based on these and several other reasons, the High Court approved the findings of the investigative judge and the special ethics prosecutor.

Lizama retired from the bench in May 2008 to run for congressional delegate. He lost to Gregorio Sablan.

Earlier, on April 10, 2007, Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja sent the chief justice a letter regarding alleged judicial misconduct, which the High Court treated as a disciplinary complaint, initiating the proceedings. Richard H. Benson was appointed pro tem as an investigative judge.

The complaint was based on Lizama’s July 17, 2006, letter to Naraja, alleging misconduct by Judge David A. Wiseman; and Lizama’s March 28, 2007, letter to Naraja alleging more misconduct by Wiseman.

Lizama’s 2006 letter, according to the High Court’s slip opinion, stated that because comments by Wiseman indicated bias, he should be replaced and another judge assigned to decide a motion in the Malite case.

The High Court noted that when Lizama was asked at a May 24, 2007, hearing what evidence led him to believe that Wiseman was biased, he admitted it was based on hearsay, suspicion and surmise.

The High Court found no evidence that Wiseman violated Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure.

The High Court said the imposition of judicial sanctions is a matter of first impression for the Supreme Court and that Lizama is still a jurist subject to the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

“Even if Lizama felt Wiseman was biased, these communications undermine the fundamental tenet that the disqualifying motion judge decides the matter, not the judge being considered for disqualification,” the SC said.

The High Court also said it must protect against the appearance of impropriety in order to instill public confidence because judges who covet publicity, or convey the appearance that they do, lead any objective observer to wonder whether their judgments are being influenced by the prospect of favorable coverage in the media.

The special ethics prosecutor also avers that Lizama violated the Canon Law, which states that a judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.

Demapan said that Lizama’s motives in disseminating the letters may have been proper but his methods were not.

“In the process of maintaining the transparency of the judicial system, Lizama departed from the requirements of the Judicial Code,” Demapan said adding that the High Court does not tolerate such behavior.

This is because, the chief justice said, if judges do not follow the rules, “how can we expect the public to do so?”