Jeffries v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 2, 2025
DocketSCPW-24-0000463
StatusPublished

This text of Jeffries v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Jeffries 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.

Bluebook
Jeffries v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, (haw 2025).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 02-JAN-2025 12:39 PM Dkt. 27 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

DONALD JEFFRIES, Petitioner,

vs.

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s letter filed on

July 8, 2024, which we construe as a petition for writ of

mandamus, and the record, it is within the discretion of the

Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to investigate and dismiss

complaints brought before it. See Rules of the Supreme Court of

the State of Hawaiʻi (RSCH) Rule 2.6(b)(2) (2022); In re

Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaiʻi Sup. Ct., 91 Hawaiʻi 363, 984 P.2d

688 (1999). This record does not reflect an abuse of that

discretion. See Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawaiʻi at 371, 984 P.2d at

696. It is ordered that the petition is denied.

We note that dockets 1, 2, and 3 have been sealed because

they contain ODC letters that are confidential pursuant to RSCH

Rule 2.22. See Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawaiʻi at 363 n.1, 984 P.2d

at 688 n.1. The appellate clerk shall refile dockets 1, 2, and

3 without the confidential ODC letters and with the names of the

respondent attorneys in the disciplinary proceeding redacted.

The appellate clerk shall also seal dockets 8, 10, 12, 14,

and 18 because they contain the names of the respondent

attorneys in the disciplinary proceeding. The appellate clerk

shall refile dockets 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18 in new docket numbers

that redact the names of the respondent attorneys.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2, 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

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

Related

In Re the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court
984 P.2d 688 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jeffries v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffries-v-office-of-disciplinary-counsel-haw-2025.