Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Manuia
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Manuia (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Manuia) 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-13-0000136 20-MAY-2013 10:20 AM SCAD-13-0000136
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
MARJORIE H. MANUIA, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 09-13-8736, 11-055-8979, 11-070-8994, 11-071-8995 and 12-046-9062)
ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai#i, recommending, inter alia, that this court suspend
Respondent Marjorie Manuia for one year and one day, the
stipulated facts, and the evidence in the record, this court
reaches the following findings and conclusions based upon clear
and convincing evidence; specifically, that:
In ODC No. 09-013-8736, Manuia took no action on her
client’s divorce proceedings between November, 2007 and August,
2008, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Hawai#i Rules of
Professional Conduct (HRPC) and, by failing to provide the client
with the promised quarterly statements, Manuia violated HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(3). By transferring to her business account $1,178.40 in
client funds to which she knew she had no rightful claim, Manuia
violated HRPC Rules 1.15(c) and 1.15(d). By failing to timely
respond to the client’s telephone calls, Manuia violated HRPC
Rule 1.4(a). By failing to provide an accounting and a refund
for 113 days from the initial request for both, Manuia violated
HRPC Rules 1.15(f)(3) and 1.16(d). By billing the client $375.00
for time spent reviewing his file before returning it to him, she
violated HRPC Rule 1.5(a). By failing to maintain the proper
financial records regarding client funds and to perform the
required account reconciliations, Manuia violated HRPC Rules
1.15(g) (1), (2), (8) and (9).
In ODC No. 11-055-8979, by accepting a $10,000.00 fee,
earning $916.21 of the fee, including general excise tax, by
December 15, 2010, and allowing the balance on her client trust
account to be drawn down to $5,721.83 as of that day, Manuia
misappropriated at least $3,361.99 of the client’s money, in
violation of HRPC Rules 1.15(c) and (d). By failing to timely
provide an accounting, Manuia violated HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(3).
Manuia violated HRPC Rules 1.15(g)(1), (2), (8), and (9) by
failing to maintain the client’s financial information in the
manner and form required by the Rules and by failing to perform
required reconciliations. The remaining violations to which
Manuia stipulated in this matter are not supported by clear and
2 convincing evidence in the record, including the stipulated
facts, or are inapplicable to the conduct alleged.
In ODC No. 11-070-8994, by failing to provide the
client with an accounting of his funds for 65 days, particularly
in light of evidence in the record that she possessed such
information shortly after the request was made, Manuia violated
HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(3). By failing to maintain required financial
records and perform required reconciliations during the time she
held the client’s money in trust, Manuia violated HRPC Rule
1.15(g)(1), (2), (8) and (9). The remaining violations to which
Manuia stipulated in this matter are not supported by clear and
convincing evidence in the record, including the stipulated
In ODC No. 11-071-8995, Manuia, by failing to respond
to the client’s requests for a final billing, violated HRPC Rule
1.4(a), by failing to provide a final accounting, violated HRPC
Rule 1.15(f)(3), and, by failing to maintain the required
financial records regarding client funds or to perform the
required reconciliations during the relevant time period,
violated HRPC Rules 1.15(g)(1), (2), (8), and (9).
In ODC No. 12-046-9062, the record and the stipulated
facts in particular, do not support, by clear and convincing
evidence, the violations stipulated to by Respondent Manuia in
the Settlement Agreement. Manuia’s conduct with regard to the
3 declaration did not rise to the level of a violation of HRPC Rule
1.3, particularly in light of the shortcomings in the service of
the document upon Manuia, the resulting truncation of time within
which to respond, and the lack of harm to the client as a result
of Manuia’s late filing of her response. Ten days to execute a
withdrawal and substitution of counsel, absent evidence in the
record of exigent circumstances necessitating immediate
withdrawal, does not rise to the level of improper withdrawal in
violation of HRPC Rule 1.16(d). Failure to timely provide an
accounting to a client constitutes a violation of HRPC Rule
1.15(f)(3), but the record is silent as to when, or if, the
client made a request for an accounting. The record is similarly
silent as to any failure on Manuia’s behalf to communicate with
the client, to timely return her telephone calls or otherwise
fail to respond to inquiries, necessary to find, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Manuia violated HRPC Rule 1.4(a).
In addition, this court finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, the following factors in aggravation and mitigation.
In aggravation, we find Manuia has received one previous
discipline, a 2007 informal admonition for failing to timely
provide a client with a copy of a court order and an accounting
when requested, in violation of HRPC Rules 1.4(a) and 1.15(f)(3);
a pattern of misconduct – a failure to communicate, to timely
provide accountings, and to effectively and properly withdraw
4 from representations – between the present matter and the past
discipline, and within the present disciplinary proceedings;
multiple violations of the HRPC; and substantial experience in
the practice of law. In mitigation, we find an absence of a
selfish or dishonest motive, a favorable reputation in the
community, including an admirable willingness to represent under-
served portions of the community, personal and emotional
challenges during part of the relevant period, a cooperative
attitude toward ODC and the disciplinary process; and a
recognition of the wrongful nature of her conduct. Therefore, a
period of suspension being warranted,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Manuia is
suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a
period of one year and one day, effective 30 days after 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).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Manuia shall
complete a course on the management of a law practice, including
in its curriculum case-load management, time management, and the
appropriate management of client funds, offered by the Practicing
Attorneys Liability Management Society, proof of completion of
said course being a precondition to the granting of any petition
for reinstatement Respondent Manuia may file in the future.
5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other
requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Manuia shall
pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely
submission of a bill of costs, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
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. Manuia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-manuia-haw-2013.