Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis) 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-12-0000608 12-OCT-2012 08:38 AM
NO. SCAD-12-0000608
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
JOAN PALMER DAVIS, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 12-025-9041)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Reifurth, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice
to Respondent Joan P. Davis, the memorandum, affidavit, and
exhibits appended thereto, the materials submitted by Respondent
Davis on September 20, 2012, and the record, it appears the
Supreme Court of the State of Georgia disbarred Respondent Davis
from the practice of law in that state on February 27, 2012; this
court, on July 30, 2012, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Davis, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of
the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), to show cause
within 30 days of the service of the order as to why the same or
substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the
State of Hawai#i and, in her response, Respondent Davis did not
establish any of the four grounds available under RSCH Rule
2.15(c)(1) – (4) to avoid reciprocal discipline in this
jurisdiction. It further appears Respondent Davis neglected
client matters, failed to reasonably communicate with clients,
failed to properly withdraw from representation, made false
statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary
matter, and engaged in professional conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, thereby violating the Hawai#i
Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16,
8.1(b), and 8.4(d). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c),
that Respondent Davis is disbarred from the practice of law in
the State of Hawai#i, effective thirty days after the date of
entry of this order, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(c).
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 Davis shall pay
all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission
2 of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as
prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 12, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Lawrence M. Reifurth
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. Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-davis-haw-2012.