Duru v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
This text of Duru v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Duru 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 SCAD-16-0000563 21-FEB-2017 01:40 PM
SCAD-16-0000563
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
IKE EMANUEL DURU,
Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(Prior Supreme Court No. 27356; ODC Case No. 05-031-8183)
ORDER DENYING PETITION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board’s Report
and Recommendation to Deny Reinstatement of Petitioner Ike
Emmanuel Duru and the record in this matter, we find and
conclude, after careful and thorough review, that Petitioner Duru
failed to follow court rules governing his disbarment,
particularly in his failure to inform his Maui employer or the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) of his foreign disbarment,
and failed to fulfill substantive conditions of this court’s
November 10, 2005 reciprocal disbarment, particularly his failure
to successfully seek reinstatement in Georgia.
We further find and conclude that Respondent Duru has
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence, as required by
Rule 2.17(b)(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai'i, that he is rehabilitated from the ethical conduct
underlying that disbarment, particularly his engaging in
discussion of legal matters with a licensed attorney and the
attorney’s client, his failure to report in his petition criminal
and civil litigation in which he was involved during his
disbarment, and his failure to timely act with initiative
regarding his outstanding student loan obligations. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Duru shall bear
the expenses incurred in the investigation into and processing of
his petition, upon the timely submission of a verified bill of
costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 21, 2017.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Duru v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duru-v-office-of-disciplinary-counsel-haw-2017.