Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Landry
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Landry (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Landry) 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-16-0000112 08-APR-2016 09:28 AM SCAD-16-0000112
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
THOMAS ALFRED LANDRY,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 7939.P1)
ORDER OF RECIPROCAL SUSPENSION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel’s February 26, 2016 petition for issuance of a reciprocal
discipline notice to Respondent Thomas Alfred Landry, pursuant to
Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai'i (RSCH), the memorandum, declaration, and exhibits
appended thereto, the March 15, 2016 notice of reciprocal
discipline issued by this court, and Respondent Landry’s March
29, 2016 submission, we note that, on October 27, 2015, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County issued an
order suspending Landry from the practice of law in that
jurisdiction for nine months, for charging and collecting an
excessive fee, failing to explain the contingent fee agreement to
the clients with sufficient clarity to enable them to make an
informed decision, and for knowingly giving false answers to the
clients’ questions regarding the fee agreement, in violation of
Rules 1.5(a), 1.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of
Professional Conduct. Respondent Landry’s conduct, if committed
in this jurisdiction, would constitute violations of Rules
1.4(b), 1.5(a), and 8.4(c) of the Hawai'i Rules of Professional
Conduct. A review of the record establishes that none of the
grounds set forth in RSCH Rule 2.15(c) for avoidance of
reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction exist in the present
matter, and Respondent Landry’s conduct, if committed in this
jurisdiction, would justify a nine-month suspension. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Thomas Alfred
Landry is suspended for nine months from the practice of law in
this jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(2) and 2.15(c),
effective thirty days after the entry of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Landry shall, in
accordance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d), file with this court, within
10 days after the effective date of his suspension, an affidavit
showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Landry shall bear
any costs associated with these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant
to RSCH Rule 2.3(c), upon approval of a timely-submitted verified
bill of costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Landry’s
reinstatement to practice in this jurisdiction is contingent upon
submission of proof to this court of his successful reinstatement
to practice in Massachusetts.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 8, 2016.
/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. Landry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-landry-haw-2016.