A.B. v. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 12, 2014
DocketSCPW-14-0000340
StatusPublished

This text of A.B. v. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (A.B. v. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A.B. v. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, (haw 2014).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000340 12-FEB-2014 08:52 AM

SCPW-14-0000340

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

A.B., Petitioner,

vs.

THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case Nos. 11-009-8933, 11-042-8966)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the January 10, 2014 petition for

a writ of mandamus submitted on behalf of Petitioner attorney

“A.B.” by attorney Samuel P. King, it appears the Petitioner has,

by way of Rule 25(b)(iii) of the Rules of the Disciplinary Board,

an alternate means to obtain relief and, therefore, that a

petition for a writ of mandamus is inappropriate. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). It further

appears that, insofar as the Board has determined the imposition

of a private, informal admonition might be appropriate in the

present matter, it is reasonable to classify as confidential,

until further order of this court, both the present petition and

the underlying disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board, the

Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the clerk of this court shall

classify the materials relating to A.B.’s disciplinary

proceedings as confidential until further order of this court

and, further, that A.B.’s motion to proceed anonymously is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 12, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
A.B. v. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ab-v-the-disciplinary-board-of-the-supreme-court-o-haw-2014.