Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Feeney

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Feeney

DecidedJuly 1, 2013

DocketSCAD-13-0000725

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Feeney (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Feeney) 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. Feeney, (haw 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-13-0000725 01-JUL-2013 SCAD-13-0000725 12:57 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

THOMAS FRANCIS FEENEY, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-017-9087)

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Thomas Francis Feeney, filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, the timely June 19, 2013 response submitted to this court by Respondent Feeney, and ODC’s subsequent June 20, 2013 statement of no opposition filed with this court, it appears, on March 8, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, suspended Respondent Feeney for one year and one day, effective April 8, 2013, for mishandling client funds, altering evidence submitted to Bar Counsel in the resulting disciplinary investigation, and failing to keep proper financial records of client trust fund monies, in violation of Rules 1.15(b)(1), 1.15(e)(3), 1.15(e)(4), 1.15(f)(1)(C), 1.15(f)(1)(E), 3.4(a), 3.4(b), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, and that Respondent Feeney does not contest the findings, conclusions or discipline of the Massachusetts authorities, or the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Feeney is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for one year, effective nunc pro tunc to April 8, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Feeney’s reinstatement to the practice of law, in addition to the requirements set forth in RSCH Rule 2.17(b), shall be contingent upon his submission to this court of proof of his unconditional reinstatement to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Feeney shall bear any costs of these proceedings incurred by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, upon the timely submission of a verified bill of costs, as authorized by RSCH Rule 2.3(c). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 1, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

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

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-13-0000725 01-JUL-2013 SCAD-13-0000725 12:57 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

THOMAS FRANCIS FEENEY, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-017-9087)

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Thomas Francis Feeney, filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, the timely June 19, 2013 response submitted to this court by Respondent Feeney, and ODC’s subsequent June 20, 2013 statement of no opposition filed with this court, it appears, on March 8, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, suspended Respondent Feeney for one year and one day, effective April 8, 2013, for mishandling client funds, altering evidence submitted to Bar Counsel in the resulting disciplinary investigation, and failing to keep proper financial records of client trust fund monies, in violation of Rules 1.15(b)(1), 1.15(e)(3), 1.15(e)(4), 1.15(f)(1)(C), 1.15(f)(1)(E), 3.4(a), 3.4(b), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, and that Respondent Feeney does not contest the findings, conclusions or discipline of the Massachusetts authorities, or the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Feeney is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for one year, effective nunc pro tunc to April 8, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Feeney’s reinstatement to the practice of law, in addition to the requirements set forth in RSCH Rule 2.17(b), shall be contingent upon his submission to this court of proof of his unconditional reinstatement to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Feeney shall bear any costs of these proceedings incurred by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, upon the timely submission of a verified bill of costs, as authorized by RSCH Rule 2.3(c). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 1, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Feeney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-feeney-haw-2013.