Office of Disciplinary Counel v. Highnote
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counel v. Highnote (Office of Disciplinary Counel v. Highnote) 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-12-0000667 24-SEP-2012 01:54 PM
NO. SCAD-12-0000667
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
GREGORY T. HIGHNOTE, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 09-029-8752)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai'i and the record, it appears Respondent Gregory T. Highnote
failed, upon withdrawal of representation, to take reasonable
steps to protect the interests of his client Somsamai Singwiset
and failed to return original documents to her for a period in
excess of three years, in violation of Rule 1.16(d) of the
Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct. It further appears
Respondent Highnote failed to cooperate with lawful requests from
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) during its investigation of Singwiset’s subsequent complaint, from March to July of 2009,
and from June 2011 to February 2012, including failing to respond
to ODC’s June 14, 2011 petition and summons and failing to attend
a November 29, 2011 pre-hearing conference. It further appears
in aggravation that Highnote has a single previous discipline
imposed by the California Bar, and has extensive experience in
the practice of law. It appears, in mitigation, that Highnote’s
behavior did not spring from a dishonest or selfish motive, that
he has assumed full responsibility for his behavior, apologized
to all parties, including Singwiset and ODC, for his neglect and
his failure to cooperate, and made good faith offers of full
restitution. Therefore, it appearing that suspension is
warranted,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Highnote is
suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a
period of sixty days, effective thirty days after the date of
entry of this order, as provided by Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of
the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Highnote shall
pay $246.25 to his former client, Somsamai Singwiset, in
reimbursement for fees and costs incurred by her as a result of
his inaction, and that Respondent Highnote shall submit proof of
such payment to this court within thirty days after the entry of
this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other
requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, Respondent Highnote shall
pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely
submission of a bill of costs, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Highnote shall,
within 10 days after the date of this order, file with this court
an affidavit in full compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 24, 2012.
/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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Office of Disciplinary Counel v. Highnote, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counel-v-highnote-haw-2012.