Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cookson
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cookson (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cookson) 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 29-APR-2020 07:53 AM SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
PATRICIA LYNN COOKSON, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 16-O-073)
ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, the evidence
in the record, and the briefs, we find by clear and convincing
evidence that Respondent Cookson’s client violated a valid court
order governing visitation rights for his child due to the
planning and instruction of Respondent Cookson and that
Respondent Cookson did not thereafter take remedial action or
otherwise recognize that she had no authority to advise her
client in a course of action that resulted in her client
retaining the child in violation of the court order. We conclude, based on those findings, that Respondent
Cookson violated Rules 1.1 and 3.4(e) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of
Professional Conduct (2014). We find that her misconduct
injured her client, his child, and Mother, as well as the
reputation of the legal profession.
We find, in aggravation, that Respondent Cookson has
substantial experience in the practice of law and that
Respondent’s conduct affected a child. We find, in mitigation,
that Respondent Cookson has a clean disciplinary record, did not
have a dishonest or selfish motive, displayed a cooperative
attitude toward disciplinary authorities, and has a good
character and reputation in the community.
We find that the role Respondent Cookson’s misconduct
played in knowingly causing her client to violate a valid court
order warrants a substantial period of suspension. However, we
take under consideration the mitigating factors listed above.
Finally, we note Respondent Cookson, in the January 23, 2020
reply brief, renewed her motion for oral argument. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for oral argument
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Cookson,
pursuant to Rule 2.3(a)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the State of Hawaiʻi (RSCH), is suspended from the practice of
2 law for 90 days, effective 30 days from the entry date of this
order. Respondent Cookson is reminded that, pursuant to RSCH
Rule 2.17(a), she may not practice law until reinstated by an
order of this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule
2.16(d), within 10 days after the effective date of her
suspension, Respondent Cookson shall submit to this court proof
of compliance with the conditions of her suspension.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Cookson shall,
pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(c), bear the costs of the disciplinary
proceedings, upon approval by this court of a timely submitted
verified bill of costs from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 29, 2020.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
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. Cookson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-cookson-haw-2020.