Acuna v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
This text of Acuna v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Acuna v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel) 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.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0001085 09-FEB-2012 11:42 AM
NO. SCPW-11-0001085
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
BENJAMIN ACUNA, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
Upon review of the letters to the Chief Justice and
Associate Justices submitted by Petitioner Benjamin Acuna
concerning the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and
Petitioner Acuna’s counsel Emmanuel V. Tipon, which we consider
as a petition for a writ of mandamus, materials submitted by ODC
in response to our December 27, 2011 order, and the record, it
appears that ODC did not abuse its discretion in the matter. See
In re Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i
363, 368, 370-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693, 695-96 (1999). It further
appears that Petitioner Acuna’s request regarding the files in
the possession of attorney Tipon is moot. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 9, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Acuna v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acuna-v-office-of-disciplinary-counsel-haw-2012.