Supreme Court Reverses Attorney Sanctions for Lack of Due Process
Saipan, CNMI – In In re Commonwealth, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s order sanctioning Keith Chambers II (“Chambers”) and James Robert Kingman (“Kingman”) because it had not provided them any notice and opportunity to be heard before it imposed sanctions. The Supreme Court also clarified the standards for when bad faith was required for actions taken in the normal course of litigation.
Chambers and Kingman were attorneys on opposing sides of a criminal case. Early on in the case, they behaved acrimoniously towards each other and received warnings to conduct themselves professionally. The case continued, eventually in front of a new judge, who reiterated the warning to act professionally. After deciding Chamber’s motion to disqualify Kingman, the Superior Court sanctioned both Kingman and Chambers for unprofessional conduct. The Superior Court referenced the earlier warning about civil conduct, but also included other charged misconduct, such as Chamber’s motion to disqualify Kingman for being intentionally delayed and Kingman for not self-disqualifying. Both Kingman and Chambers appealed, arguing that their due process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard were violated, that a finding of bad faith should have been required, and contested the particular grounds for each sanction.
The Supreme Court found that both Kingman and Chambers had their due process rights violated. While there had been warnings to reform their conduct, the Superior Court had not given them notice such that they could have prepared a meaningful defense. The warnings did not give the impression that sanctions were imminent, nor did they directly form the basis for the sanctions the Superior Court ultimately gave. Neither Kingman nor Chambers had an opportunity to argue their cases, in person or in writing, thus in violation of their right to be heard.
The Supreme Court then explained the standard for bad faith. A court must make a finding of bad faith when it sanctions an attorney for actions the attorney takes in the normal course of litigation. In this case, both Kingman and Chambers acted in their roles as advocates, and so a finding of bad faith was necessary. Bad faith simply requires a finding of improper motive. This finding does not need to be explicit, as it can be implied.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the Superior Court to give Kingman and Chambers notice and opportunity to be heard, and if necessary, to apply the standard of bad faith as the Supreme Court described.
The full opinion can be read on the Law Revision Commission website: https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/lrc-uploads/2026/case-2026-mp-11-u76.pdf
This press release constitutes no part of the decision of the Supreme Court and has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the public. For further information, contact the Supreme Court at Supreme.Court@NMIJudiciary.gov.
2026-PR-039
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 2, 2026
Comments