Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Choi
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Choi (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Choi) 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-XX-XXXXXXX 24-JUN-2022 09:58 AM Dkt. 13 ORD
SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
NATHAN W.S. CHOI, (HI bar #7265), Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 21-0283)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the June 16, 2022 response and
motion for oral argument, filed by counsel for Respondent
Attorney Nathan W.S. Choi, to this court’s May 18, 2022 Notice
and Order, issued pursuant to Rule 2.15 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and the record in
this matter, we note that, on November 12, 2021 Respondent Choi
admitted he was aware of the allegations against him in
Washington State, stated that he voluntarily chose to permanently
resign from the Washington State bar rather than contest those
allegations, and agreed to seek to resign permanently from the practice of law in all other states and jurisdictions in which he
was admitted. We note that one of those jurisdictions in which
Respondent Choi is currently licensed is the State of Hawai#i,
and further note Respondent Choi’s current efforts to
collaterally attack the effect of his Washington State
resignation rather than to seek to resign his Hawai#i license,
efforts which are contrary to the steps he agreed to undertake in
the November 17, 2021 Notice of Resignation in Lieu of
Discipline. We note that a resignation in lieu of discipline in
Washington State, pursuant to Rule 9.3(b)(8) of the Washington
State Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC), subjects the
attorney to all restrictions that apply to a disbarred lawyer,
and that Choi acknowledged, pursuant to ELC Rule 9.3(b)(4)(D),
that his resignation could be treated as a disbarment in this
jurisdiction, and so conclude his resignation is equivalent to a
disbarment for disciplinary purposes, and further conclude that
the allegations against Respondent Choi, if established, would
warrant similar discipline in this jurisdiction. Finally, we
acknowlege the motion filed June 20, 2022 by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, seeking leave to file a reply memorandum if
this court concluded further proceedings in this jurisdiction
were warranted. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for further
proceedings, including oral argument, is denied.
2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Choi is
reciprocally disbarred in this jurisdiction, effective 30 days
after the entry date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ODC’s motion for leave to
file a reply memorandum is denied as moot.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 24, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
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. Choi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-choi-haw-2022.