Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hawver
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hawver (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hawver) 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-15-0000008 18-MAY-2015 10:38 AM SCAD-15-0000008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
IRA DENNIS HAWVER, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 14-069-9212)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a
reciprocal discipline notice upon Respondent Ira Dennis Hawver,
filed on January 7, 2015 by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and the memorandum and exhibits appended
thereto, we note that, on November 14, 2014, the Supreme Court of
the State of Kansas disbarred Respondent Hawver for misconduct
committed during his representation in a capital murder case in
which his client was sentenced to death, misconduct which
included incompetence, charging a fee which gave rise to an
improper conflict of interest, engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and which adversely
reflected upon his fitness to practice law, and for failing to
timely respond to a formal disciplinary complaint, which
constituted violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct
Rules 1.1, 1.5, 1.7(a)(2), 1.16(a)(1), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) and
Kansas Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 211(b) and which, if
committed in this jurisdiction during the relevant time period,
would constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.5(a), 1.7(b), and
1.16(a)(1) of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct (1994).
Hawver did not submit any arguments as to why a substantially
similar discipline should not be imposed upon him in this
jurisdiction, and none clearly appears upon the face of the
Kansas record. Therefore, in light of the above and the
particularly grave consequences of incompetent representation in
a capital murder case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Respondent Hawver is disbarred
from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, effective 30 days
after the date of entry of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of
reinstatement, in addition to any requirements imposed pursuant
to RSCH Rules 2.3, 2.16, and 2.17, Respondent Hawver shall pay
all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely
submission by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of a bill of
costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by
2 RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Hawver shall,
within 10 days after the effective date of his suspension, file
an affidavit with this court that he has complied with the duties
and obligations of a disbarred attorney, as set forth in RSCH
Rule 2.16(d).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 18, 2015.
/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. Hawver, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-hawver-haw-2015.