Case ID: am-samoa-2d_3/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FANENE F. TAOFI KAVA, Plaintiff v. TABO SEVA'AETASI, ASUEGA FA'AMAMATA SALANOA, and LOTOA GI TAVAI, Defendants
    High Court of American Samoa Land & Titles Division
    LT. NO. 33-86
    November 5, 1986
    Counsel: For the Plaintiff, Aviata Fa'alevao
    For Defendants, Charles Ala'ilima and Asaua Fuimaono
    For the prospective Intervenor, Puleleite Túfele
   We took under advisement the motion of Uiva Te'o to intervene. At the time we believed that this motion had been served on all but one of the parties. We have since discovered that the returns of service in the record were for another document, and that there is no return of service of this motion on any party.

It also appears from the record that the legal practitioner representing the prospective intervenor was also the arbitrator in the Office of Samoan Affairs proceedings in this case. This is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Samoa Bar-Association. See Ethical Consideration 5-20: "After a lawyer has undertaken to act as an impartial arbitrator or mediator, he should not thereafter represent in the dispute any of the parties involved. *

The motion to intervene is denied, without prejudice to the right of the party to bring another motion through other counsel and with proper- notice to all parties.