Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinez
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinez (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinez) 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-16-0000523 29-SEP-2016 10:08 AM
SCAD-16-0000523
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
WILLIAM T. MARTINEZ, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 15-034-9253)
ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of
the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai#i, the stipulated facts, and the evidence in the record, we
conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
William T. Martinez engaged in misconduct warranting discipline.
Respondent Martinez, by failing to timely file a
request for an extension for his client’s non-immigrant visa
prior to the September 9, 2012 expiration date, violated Rule 1.3
of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994) and,
by filing an erroneous petition on September 17, 2012, violated HRPC Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), and 1.3.
By failing to correctly inform his client that the
subsequent September 26, 2012 Notice from the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services required the client to exit
the U.S. and to re-apply at the U.S. Consulate in Venezuela in
order to avoid accruing unlawful presence in the U.S., Respondent
Martinez violated HRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and 1.4(b), and, by
instead informing his client the client’s visa had been
successfully extended, negligently misrepresented the facts, in
violation of HRPC Rule 8.4(c).
We conclude Respondent Martinez’s conduct harmed the
legal system and his client, including the possibility of a bar
on re-entry into the U.S., and who suffered actual monetary
injury and other harm, by accruing unlawful presence in the U.S.
We find, in aggravation, Respondent Martinez has a
single prior discipline - a private informal admonition in 2004 -
and substantial experience in the practice of law. We find his
client was vulnerable, as an immigrant for whom English was a
second language, who had relied upon Respondent Martinez’s legal
services to lawfully remain in the United States so the client
could work and support his family.
2 In mitigation, we find Respondent Martinez made a full
and free disclosure to the disciplinary authorities and was
cooperative during the proceedings. We find he experienced
during the relevant period personal problems related to his
family’s health. We note his good character and reputation in
the community, his pro bono work for the artistic community, and
the remorse he demonstrated by taking steps to remedy his errors
prior to the filing of a complaint against him. We note the
prior discipline is remote in time.
Therefore, it appearing that a period of suspension is
appropriate,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Martinez is
suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for
45 days, 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 Martinez shall
pay restitution to his client named in this matter the sum of
$2,471.00 and shall submit proof of payment to this court, within
one year of the entry date of this order.
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 Martinez shall
pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely
3 submission of a bill of costs by the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Martinez shall,
within ten days after the effective date of his suspension, file
with this court an affidavit he has fully complied with the
duties of a suspended attorney set forth in RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 29, 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. Martinez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-martinez-haw-2016.