Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Agmata

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJune 27, 2017
DocketSCAD-17-0000410
StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Agmata (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Agmata) 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
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Agmata, (haw 2017).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-17-0000410 27-JUN-2017 10:14 AM

SCAD-17-0000410

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

VICTOR AGMATA, JR., Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC CASE NO. 16-0-401)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition submitted on May 11,

2017 by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), requesting the

immediate suspension of Respondent Victor Agmata, Jr. from the

practice of law pursuant to Rule 2.12A of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), the declaration and

exhibits attached thereto, and the record, we find Respondent

Agmata has failed to meaningfully or substantively respond to

lawful requests from ODC regarding its investigations into

alleged misconduct committed by him, or to respond by the June 6,

2017 deadline to this court’s May 22, 2017 order to show cause as to why he should not be immediately suspended for the above

conduct. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.12A,

Respondent Agmata is suspended from the practice of law. This

order is effective immediately and until further order of this

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order imposing

suspension upon Respondent Agmata shall constitute a suspension

for purposes of RSCH Rule 2.16. The Disciplinary Board of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i and Respondent Agmata shall

therefore comply with the relevant requirements of that Rule.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall forthwith

distribute a copy of this order to all judges, pursuant to RSCH

Rule 2.16(f). Distribution may be by electronic mail.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 27, 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

Bluebook (online)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Agmata, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-agmata-haw-2017.