Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartman

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartman

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

DocketSCAD-11-0000096

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartman (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartman) 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. Hartman, (haw 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000096 24-MAR-2011 09:52 AM SCAD-11-0000096

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

GARY L. HARTMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 05-130-8282, 05-146-8298,06-118-8458,

07-018-8478, 10-003-8837, 10-007-8841)

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

We have considered the Disciplinary Board’s Report and Recommendation to suspend Respondent Gary L. Hartman from the practice of law in light of the record, the stipulations of the parties, and Respondent Hartman’s lack of objection as exhibited by his failure to request briefing as permitted by Rule 2.7(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH). It appears Respondent Hartman neglected clients’ cases, took unearned fees, did not maintain trust accounts and books and records required by our rules, did not comply with court orders, and did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigations that resulted from the complaints of his clients and the report of payments against insufficient funds in trust accounts. Respondent Hartman’s misconduct resulted in multiple violations of Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.15(a)(1), 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(g), 1.3, 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Hartman is

suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for one

year and one day, effective 30 days after entry of this order as

provided by RSCH Rule 2.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hartman shall

comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 and shall pay such

costs, if any, as are subsequently assessed upon timely

submission of Disciplinary Counsel’s verified bill of costs.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 24, 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-11-0000096 24-MAR-2011 09:52 AM SCAD-11-0000096

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

GARY L. HARTMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 05-130-8282, 05-146-8298,06-118-8458,

07-018-8478, 10-003-8837, 10-007-8841)

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

We have considered the Disciplinary Board’s Report and Recommendation to suspend Respondent Gary L. Hartman from the practice of law in light of the record, the stipulations of the parties, and Respondent Hartman’s lack of objection as exhibited by his failure to request briefing as permitted by Rule 2.7(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH). It appears Respondent Hartman neglected clients’ cases, took unearned fees, did not maintain trust accounts and books and records required by our rules, did not comply with court orders, and did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigations that resulted from the complaints of his clients and the report of payments against insufficient funds in trust accounts. Respondent Hartman’s misconduct resulted in multiple violations of Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.15(a)(1), 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(g), 1.3, 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Hartman is

suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for one

year and one day, effective 30 days after entry of this order as

provided by RSCH Rule 2.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hartman shall

comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 and shall pay such

costs, if any, as are subsequently assessed upon timely

submission of Disciplinary Counsel’s verified bill of costs.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 24, 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. Hartman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-hartman-haw-2011.