Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gould
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gould (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gould) 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-13-0000134 18-JUL-2013 01:31 PM
SCAD-13-0000134
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
BURTON D. GOULD, Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re Application for Reinstatement of
BURTON D. GOULD, Applicant.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation for
the denial of Petitioner Burton D. Gould’s petition for
reinstatement to the practice of law, submitted to this court by
the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai#i, and the record,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Burton D. Gould’s petition
for reinstatement is granted, subject to the conditions set
forth, below. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 2.17(b) of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), that
Burton D. Gould is reinstated to the practice of law in this
jurisdiction. This order is effective upon filing, subject to
the conditions set forth below and the provisions of RSCH Rule
2.17(d) concerning registration with Hawai#i State Bar
Association.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Gould shall,
within 365 days of the date of entry of this order, complete at
his own expense, certified legal education, worth at least 6
units of Continuing Legal Education approved by the Hawai#i State
Bar Association, in the area of ethics, including the provisions
of the new Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct and the
responsible management of client funds, separate and distinct
from the 3 hours of Mandatory Continuing Professional Education
required of all active attorneys, pursuant to Rule 22(a) of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH).
within 375 days of the entry date of this order, submit to the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and this court proof of the
completion of all required courses, including an affidavit of
said completion. Petitioner Gould is hereby notified that
failure to timely complete the required courses or to timely
submit proof of their completion to this court and ODC may result
in sanctions or other appropriate action by this court.
2 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule
2.17(d), Petitioner Gould shall bear the costs of the
reinstatement proceedings, upon the timely submission of a
verified bill of costs, within 60 days of the date of entry of
this order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 18, 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gould, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-gould-haw-2013.