Supreme Court Defines “Majority Vote” In Attorney Discipline Case
- webadmin597
- 3 hours ago
- 1 min read
Saipan, CNMI – In In re Myers, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging that Robert H. Myers, Jr. (“Myers”) engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. While suspended from the practice of law, Myers held himself out as an attorney and provided legal advice. The Disciplinary Committee of the CNMI Bar Association subsequently brought an action against him for practicing law without a license. Myers moved to dismiss, arguing that the Disciplinary Committee had been improperly elected. Under the Rules of Attorney Discipline and Procedure, the Disciplinary Committee members must be elected by a “majority vote” of members of the Bar Association. At the time Myers was prosecuted, all members had been elected in low-turnout elections but received unanimous approval from the members who voted.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Disciplinary Committee members had not been elected by a “majority vote” because a majority of the Bar members had not voted in the elections. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. It held that “majority vote” refers to a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the Bar Association’s entire membership. This definition is consistent with both the meaning of the term in everyday English and judicial decisions throughout the United States.
The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings.
The full opinion is available on the Law Revision Commission website:
2026-PR-025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 2026
This press release has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the public. For further information, contact the Supreme Court at Supreme.Court@NMIJudiciary.gov