Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Au
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Au (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Au) 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 26517 14-OCT-2010 11:56 AM NO. 26517
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
RONALD G.S. AU, Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF RONALD G.S. AU, Applicant.
(ODC 95-242-4701, 97-213-5407, 98-064-555)
ORDER (By: Nakayama, J. for the court1)
Upon review of Petitioner Ronald G.S. Au’s motion for leave to file a reply brief exceeding 10 pages and his request to file a reply brief of 20 pages, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted. Petitioner Au may file a reply brief that does not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of indexes, appendices, and statements of related cases. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 14, 2010.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Associate Justice
1 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, J., Circuit Judge Crandall in place of Acoba, J., recused, Circuit Judge Trader in place of Duffy, J., recused, and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Au, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-au-haw-2010.