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 10-JAN-2011 01:54 PM
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,
Petitioner.
(ODC 95-242-4701, ODC 97-213-5407, 98-064-5555)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
(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)
Upon consideration of the “Disciplinary Board’s Report
and Recommendation Denying Reinstatement of Ronald G.S. Au to the
Practice of Law,” the record, and the briefs of the parties, it
appears that Petitioner Au was suspended from the practice of law
for 5 years, effective July 22, 2005. It further appears that
during the period of suspension, Petitioner Au represented
himself and a company, Gourmet Delite, Inc., in arbitrating
issues concerning a business lease, a violation of Rule 2.17(a)
of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i. Petitioner Au was entitled to represent himself in the arbitration, but he could not represent Gourmet Delite, Inc. See Oahu Plumbing v. Kona Construction, Inc., 60 Haw. 372, 590 P.2d 570 (1979) and ODC v. Gould, 119 Hawai'i 265, 195 P.3d 1197 (2008). Petitioner Au’s arguments that his representation of Gourmet Delite, Inc. was authorized by HRS chapter 658A are without merit. In light of Petitioner Au’s practice while suspended, we see no need to address in detail the other points raised by him, and merely note we find them without merit. In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Au’s Petition for
Reinstatement is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Au may not seek
reinstatement before December 31, 2012.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 10, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Virginia L. Crandall
/s/ Rom A. Trader
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
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-2011.