Atalig, Yana suspensions vacated

The Commonwealth Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, vacated two attorneys’ suspensions from practicing law because the trial court did not follow the rules and procedures governing attorney discipline.

In vacating Antonio M. Atalig’s and Reynaldo O. Yana’s suspensions, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the suspensions, but instead remanded the case to the trial court so a proper disciplinary hearing can take place.

In 2007, Atalig and Yana received $1.3 million in attorney fees for their work on the Angel Malite probate case. The Supreme Court instructed that the trial court evaluate the propriety of the fees.

As a result, Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo ordered the two lawyers to return the money and provide the court with a detailed billing statement so it could evaluate the reasonableness of the fee award.

Atalig and Yana provided a billing statement, but Govendo deemed it to be both vague and insufficient. Additionally, the attorneys failed to return the attorney fees, claiming the money had already been spent. As a result, Govendo found Atalig and Yana in contempt of court, suspended them from practicing law until they returned the attorney fees, and threw them both in jail.

On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the suspensions. The Supreme Court determined that before suspending attorneys, the trial court must comply with the disciplinary rules governing attorney discipline. However, the Supreme Court stated that “although the trial court demonstrated its familiarity with the disciplinary rules, it only applied them selectively.”

The Supreme Court noted that Govendo failed to follow the disciplinary rules in that he did not properly notify the presiding judge about the attorneys’ conduct, issue a formal complaint, allow the attorneys to issue a response to the complaint, or hold a closed-door hearing.

In its decision, the Supreme Court justices stated that they do not wish to see different trial judges implementing different disciplinary procedures depending on the case. The High Court further stated that if “trial judges were to discipline attorneys without regard to the guidelines set forth in the Commonwealth Disciplinary Rules and Procedure, the consequences might cripple the judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duties.”

It was not immediately learned if Atalig and Yana have already been released from the Department of Corrections where they have been incarcerated since March 25 due to the contempt-of-court charges. On Aug. 15 this year, Govendo allowed Yana and Atalig to leave the prison complex for a few days each week to prepare a detailed account of their work with the Malite estate probate.

The Supreme Court opinion was issued by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, Justice Alexandro C. Castro, and Justice John A. Manglona. [B][I](PR, Saipan Tribune files)[/I][/B]