Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lehman
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lehman (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lehman) 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-14-0001350 16-JAN-2015 11:28 AM SCAD-14-0001350
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPH C. LEHMAN,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 14-059-9202)
ORDER OF RECIPROCAL SUSPENSION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel’s December 9, 2014 petition for issuance of a reciprocal
discipline notice to Respondent Joseph C. Lehman, 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 December 22, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline
issued by this court, and Respondent Lehman’s December 22, 2014
submission, we note that, on February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court
of Indiana suspended Respondent Lehman for a minimum of two
years, for violations of the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules
1.1 (for incompetent representation), 1.2(a) (for failing to
abide by a client’s decisions concerning objectives of a
representation), 1.6(a) (for revealing information relating to a
client without the client’s informed consent), 1.9(c)(2) (for
revealing information relating to the representation of a former
client not permitted or required by the Rules), 1.15(a) (for
commingling attorney and client funds and spending money out of
trust for personal uses) and 8.4(d) (for engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice). The Indiana
Supreme Court also concluded Lehman’s commingling of client and
attorney funds, and failure to maintain proper financial records,
also violated Rules 23(29)(a)(2), 23(29)(a)(3) and 23(29)(a)(4)
of the Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules. Lehman’s conduct
set forth in the record, if committed in this jurisdiction, would
represent violations of Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct
Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.6(a), 1.9(c)(2), 1.15(a), 3.2,
and 3.4(e). Respondent Lehman, in his response, argues denial of
due process and infirmity of proof sufficient to establish an
exception to reciprocal discipline under RSCH Rules 2.15(c)(1)
and (2). A review of the record, however, demonstrates
Respondent Lehman was provided notice of the proceedings against
him, participated in the process, and was afforded an opportunity
to be heard both at the hearings and thereafter by written
submission. The record also demonstrates Respondent Lehman
exceeded by more than two months the deadline imposed through
published court rule for him to request review by the Indiana
Supreme Court, and only filed said request after the court
entered its final judgment in the matter. In short, a review of
the record does not support Respondent Lehman’s contentions.
Respondent Lehman’s conduct, if committed in this jurisdiction,
would not warrant a substantially different discipline than that
imposed by the Supreme Court of Indiana. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Joseph C. Lehman
is suspended for two years 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 Lehman 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 Lehman 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 Lehman’s
reinstatement to practice in this jurisdiction is contingent upon
submission of proof to this court of his successful reinstatement
to practice in Indiana.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 16, 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. Lehman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-lehman-haw-2015.