Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hayashi
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hayashi (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hayashi) 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-12-0001028 19-MAR-2013 01:57 PM
SCAD-12-0001028
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
DERWIN HAYASHI, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 09-075-8798)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Pollack, JJ. and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, in place of McKenna, J, recused)
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai#i for the imposition of a two-week suspension and other
sanctions against Respondent Derwin Hayashi, the stipulated
facts, and the evidence in the record, this court concludes by
clear and convincing evidence that Hayashi deposited $3,000.00 in
client funds directly into his personal bank account, rather than
a client trust account, failed within a reasonable time following
the initiation of the representation to communicate to the client
a basis or rate of his fee, and failed to timely provide an accurate accounting to the client when requested to do so. We
further conclude Hayashi failed to maintain a client trust
account or the required financial records pertaining to the
receipt, safeguarding, and disbursement of client funds, and
filed false statements concerning his receipt of client funds on
his annual bar registration statements for 2009 and 2010.
Hayashi’s conduct violated Rules 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(c),
1.15(d), 1.15(f)(3), 1.15(g), and 8.4(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of
Professional Conduct. We also recognize in aggravation Hayashi’s
substantial experience in the practice of law and, in mitigation,
his unblemished disciplinary record over his thirty years of
practice, evidence of his good character, principles, and work
ethic, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, his
cooperation with disciplinary authorities, and the subsequent
opening of a client trust account since the initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings against him. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the discipline recommended in
the Stipulated Agreement reached by the parties is hereby
imposed; to wit, Respondent Derwin Hayashi is suspended from the
practice of law in this jurisdiction for two weeks, effective 30
days from the date of entry of this order, as provided by Rules
2.3(a)(2) and 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawai#i (RSCH), is ordered to complete nine hours of
continuing legal education within 375 days from the date of the
2 entry of this order, in addition to any continuing legal
education requirements imposed upon members of the bar as a
whole, and the completion of the mentoring agreement memorialized
in the Stipulated Agreement and in the exhibits appended thereto.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hayashi shall
submit to this court an affidavit of completion of the additional
continuing legal education classes within 375 days after the
entry date of this order, with appropriate supporting
documentation appended thereto.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ODC shall monitor the
mentoring program and submit to this court, within 375 days after
the entry date of this order, a declaration reporting the
successful completion of the program by Hayashi or a declaration
of any failure attributable to Respondent Hayashi to complete
said mentoring program, along with any appropriate reports or
documentation in support thereof.
submit an affidavit demonstrating compliance with RSCH Rule
2.16(d) within 10 days after the effective date of his
suspension.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hayashi shall pay
all costs of the proceedings, as approved upon a timely
submission of a bill of costs, as authorized by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board shall
remind Respondent Hayashi that he may not resume the practice of
law until reinstated by order of this court, pursuant to RSCH
Rule 2.17.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 19, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Craig H. Nakamura
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. Hayashi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-hayashi-haw-2013.