Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson) 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 28686 12-JUN-2014 08:52 AM
NO. 28686
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
STEVEN B. JOHNSON, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 08-053-8696)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon further consideration of this court’s December 8,
2010 order in ODC v. Johnson, No. 28686, disbarring Respondent
Steven B. Johnson upon entry of the order, the record, and
Johnson’s recent application to sit for the Hawai#i bar exam, it
appears the terms of the December 8, 2010 order require
Respondent Johnson to “apply for, take, and pass the Hawai#i Bar
Examination before a reinstatement petition will be considered.”
It further appears Rule 1.3(b)(5) of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH) forbids an attorney from
sitting for the bar exam “during any period in which the applicant is suspended or disbarred . . . .” The terms of the
December 8, 2010 order of this court and RSCH Rule 1.3(b)(5)
therefore effectively operate to prevent Respondent Johnson from
applying for reinstatement, as provided for in RSCH Rule 2.17.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms of this court’s
December 8, 2010 order of disbarment are amended. Pursuant to
RSCH Rule 2.17(b)(1), Respondent Johnson may apply for
reinstatement as of December 9, 2015 but a successful petition
for reinstatement shall not take full effect until, upon granting
of the petition, Respondent Johnson applies for, takes, and
passes the Hawai#i Bar Examination.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Johnson is
reminded that the terms of this court’s November 8, 2007 order of
reciprocal suspension shall remain in effect, to wit any
reinstatement to practice in this jurisdiction is contingent upon
payment of the costs of those reciprocal discipline proceedings
and full reinstatement to practice law in Oregon.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 12, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/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. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-johnson-haw-2014.