Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kleinsmith
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kleinsmith (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kleinsmith) 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-13-0000572 15-JUL-2013 10:20 AM SCAD-13-0000572
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-016-9086)
ORDER IMPOSING PUBLIC CENSURE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel’s May 1, 2013 petition for issuance of a reciprocal
discipline notice to Respondent Philip Martin Kleinsmith,
pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawai#i (RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits
appended thereto, the May 23, 2013 Notice of Reciprocal
Discipline issued by this court, and the record, it appears: (1)
on March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of Arizona imposed upon
Respondent Kleinsmith a reprimand, a one-year term of probation,
subject to early termination upon the completion of an ethics
course at his own expense, and costs of the proceedings, for
conduct in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 5.3, and 8.4(d) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) this
court’s May 23, 2013 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline was served
on Respondent Kleinsmith on May 28, 2013, (3) by the terms of the
May 23, 2013 order and RSCH Rule 2.15(b), Respondent Kleinsmith
had until June 27, 2013 to respond to the Notice with any reasons
as to why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed upon him,
(4) Respondent Kleinsmith has failed to file a response with this
court, and (5) a review of the record and precedent demonstrates,
pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and (d), that reciprocal
discipline is authorized and justified. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Philip Martin
Kleinsmith is publicly censured by this court, pursuant to RSCH
Rules 2.3(a)(3) and 2.15(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Kleinsmith shall
bear the costs of these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant to RSCH
Rule 2.3(c), upon the timely submission of a verified bill of
costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 15, 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. Kleinsmith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-kleinsmith-haw-2013.