THE CNMI Bar Association, through appointed prosecuting attorney Jose Mafnas Jr., has filed a complaint for disciplinary action against attorney Shelli Neal in Superior Court.
The complaint asks the court to discipline Neal “as…appropriate under the facts and the applicable disciplinary rules and law.”
The complaint likewise asked the court to order Neal to provide her former client, Qihao “Henry” Liang, with any and all accounting applicable to their attorney-client relationship and pay all funds owed to Liang derived from the rental monies received by Neal on his behalf.
Mafnas said Neal should serve a 90-day interim suspension, “subject to extensions, until the matter is adjudicated and discipline is administered.”
The prosecutor also wants the court to order Neal to promptly pay all reasonable costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of the disciplinary matter to the judiciary and/or the NMI bar.
He said Neal should be “held liable for all other damages, legal or equitable, that the Commonwealth Superior Court and/or the Commonwealth Supreme Court, deem appropriate.”
The complaint accused Neal of misconduct and lack of due diligence in her representation of Liang in a civil action.
A former CNMI chief prosecutor, Neal represented Liang in 2017 in Superior Court Civil Action 17-0142.
Variety was unable to get a comment from Neal.
Background
On June 16, 2017, Ranjit Kumar Saha sued Triple Star Corp. and Liang, alleging that Liang tortiously interfered with Saha’s rental contract with TSC involving a piece of property for which Liang was receiving rent.
Neal filed an answer and counterclaims on July 5, 2017.
She then obtained a stipulation to allow the filing of an amended answer and counterclaims on Aug. 8, 2017.
Neal filed the first amended answer and counterclaims on Aug. 11, 2017, three days after the stipulated deadline of Aug. 8, 2017.
Neal filed a second amended answer and counterclaims on Aug. 24, 2017.
Neal’s opposing counsel requested a case management conference and mediation assessment hearing on Sept. 6, 2017.
Neal then filed a stipulation by both parties to continue the status conference to March 2018. There was no indication, such as an order after a status conference, what transpired at the status conference in March 2018.
On Jan. 25, 2019, Saha’s counsel filed a summary judgment motion. On information and belief, Neal missed the deadline to formally respond.
More than a month after the filing of the motion, she filed a cross motion for summary judgment on behalf of her clients, including Liang.
On Oct. 9, 2019, the court rendered a decision partially granting Saha’s summary judgment motion and denying Liang’s motion for summary judgment.
In that order, the court commented on Neal’s representation, stating that the defendants “cite no cases or law for the Court to consider,” and added that Neal’s arguments for the defendants were not adequately briefed.
The Liang case remained dormant from February 2020 until Feb. 10, 2021, when Denny Nie filed his notice of appearance as counsel for Liang.
Liang, through Nie’s representation, settled the case with a stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice shortly after Neal was substituted.
While the case was ongoing, Liang desired to sell or lease his rental property in 2017, 2018 and in 2019 while the real estate market during those times warranted a higher value for his rental property. But Liang was unable to sell or lease his rental property because his case was still pending.
Rental payment collection
While the Liang case was ongoing between 2017 and 2020, Liang authorized Neal to receive rent from the rental property on his behalf in the amount of $500 per month.
According to the complaint against her, Neal began receiving rent for Liang from March 2017 and continued receiving rent on Liang’s behalf until March 2022.
“More than four months after the March 4 follow up text, still having not received an accounting or rental monies from Ms. Neal after his request in his Nov. 2020 text, Mr. Liang delivered a letter to Ms. Neal dated Aug. 9, 2021 requesting an accounting of the rental funds Ms. Neal received on behalf of Mr. Liang and invoices for Ms. Neal’s legal work for Mr. Liang,” the complaint stated.
As of the date of the complaint, about three years after Liang’s November 2020 text, “Ms. Neal has still failed to provide the requested accounting to Mr. Liang, notwithstanding her receipt of various notices from the NMI Bar’s disciplinary committee regarding her failure to provide an accounting to Mr. Liang, which is one of the primary bases of the disciplinary complaint against Ms. Neal.”
Real estate transaction
On a separate occasion, Liang retained Neal to conduct a real estate lease transaction for him sometime in 2017 involving a piece of property in Dandan worth $183,000.
The applicable real estate tax for the Dandan transaction was 2.5%, equating to $4,575.
According to the complaint, “Mr. Liang sought to pay the real estate tax himself, but Ms. Neal requested that Mr. Liang pay her $4,575…directly so that she could utilize her credit card to earn points from the real estate tax transaction.”
“In reliance of Ms. Neal’s representations to him, Mr. Liang expected Ms. Neal to promptly pay the real estate tax to the CNMI Division of Revenue and Tax and to not use the monies for any other purpose other than to pay the real estate tax. On information and belief, Ms. Neal deposited the check into her personal bank account on June 6, 2017,” the complaint stated.
“On his own initiative and after filing a complaint about Ms. Neal’s conduct to the NMI Bar, on Oct. 19, 2023, Mr. Liang verified with the CNMI Division of Revenue and Tax that the real estate tax was fully paid. Ms. Neal paid the amount of $4,000 on June 26, 2017, and then made another payment on July 14, 2017 for $575 toward the real estate tax. Ms. Neal’s payments were untimely pursuant to 4 CMC § 1823 and therefore in violation of the law,” the complaint stated.
On Dec. 6, 2022, Liang filed a complaint with the CNMI Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee.
“Notwithstanding receiving notice from the NMI Disciplinary Committee regarding Mr. Liang’s complaints against her, Ms. Neal did not make any effort to cure the obvious lack of communication to Mr. Liang regarding his real estate tax nor did she make any effort to provide him with an accounting as he had requested from her multiple times,” the complaint stated.
