Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buckman

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 9, 2011
DocketSCAD-10-0000170
StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buckman (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buckman) 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. Buckman, (haw 2011).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-10-0000170 09-MAR-2011 09:45 AM SCAD-10-0000170

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

MARK F. BUCKMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-073-8907)

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel’s Petition for Issuance of Reciprocal Discipline Notice,

our December 8, 2010 Notice and Order, Assistant Disciplinary

Counsel’s affidavit regarding service of the notice and order,

Respondent Mark F. Buckman’s lack of response thereto, and the

record, it appears Respondent Buckman stipulated to, and the

California State Bar Court imposed a public reproval with

conditions, upon stipulation of misconduct in two cases wherein

Respondent Buckman failed "to pay promptly, as requested by a

client, funds in [his] possession [that] the client was entitled

to receive," and "to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." It further appears that such

conduct merits the substantially equivalent discipline of public

censure in this jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Buckman is hereby

publically censured.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Buckman shall

comply with the stipulated conditions imposed by the California

State Bar Court and shall submit an affidavit of compliance to

this court, under the case number on this order, after all

conditions have been met.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 9, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Craig H. Nakamura

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. Buckman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-buckman-haw-2011.