Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chun

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chun

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 19, 2011

DocketSCAD-11-0000380

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chun (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 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. Chun, (hawapp 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000380 19-JUL-2011 11:01 AM SCAD-11-0000380

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

TERRIE CHUN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 11-031-8955)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Terrie Chun, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it appears the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Terrie Chun from the practice of law in that state on July 30, 2009; this court, on June 1, 2011, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Chun, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai#i; service of this court’s notice and order is deemed effective June 2, 2011; and Respondent Chun has not appeared or shown cause as to why such discipline should not be imposed. It further appears that Respondent Chun is not within the State of Hawai#i and that making this disbarment order effective 30 days after its entry as provided by RSCH Rule 2.1(c) would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), that Respondent Chun is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai#i, effective upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Chun shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 19, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000380 19-JUL-2011 11:01 AM SCAD-11-0000380

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

TERRIE CHUN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 11-031-8955)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Terrie Chun, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it appears the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Terrie Chun from the practice of law in that state on July 30, 2009; this court, on June 1, 2011, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Chun, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai#i; service of this court’s notice and order is deemed effective June 2, 2011; and Respondent Chun has not appeared or shown cause as to why such discipline should not be imposed. It further appears that Respondent Chun is not within the State of Hawai#i and that making this disbarment order effective 30 days after its entry as provided by RSCH Rule 2.1(c) would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), that Respondent Chun is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai#i, effective upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Chun shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 19, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chun, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-chun-hawapp-2011.