Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinsen

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinsen

DecidedAugust 10, 2011

DocketSCAD-11-0000303

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinsen (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinsen) 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.

Bluebook

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinsen, (haw 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000303 10-AUG-2011 12:38 PM SCAD-11-0000303

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

CHERYL PARKINSON MARTINSEN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-008-8842)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Cheryl Parkinson Martinsen, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it appears the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Martinsen from the practice of law in that state on November 10, 2010; this court, on April 7, 2011, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Martinsen, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai#i; service of this court’s notice and order is deemed effective April 18, 2011; and Respondent Martinsen has not appeared or shown cause as to why such discipline should not be imposed. It further appears that Respondent Martinsen cannot be located within the State of Hawai#i and that making this disbarment order effective 30 days after its entry as provided by RSCH Rule 2.1(c) would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), that Respondent Martinsen is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai#i, effective, notwithstanding RSCH Rule 2.16(c), immediately upon entry 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 Martinsen shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 10, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000303 10-AUG-2011 12:38 PM SCAD-11-0000303

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

CHERYL PARKINSON MARTINSEN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-008-8842)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Cheryl Parkinson Martinsen, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it appears the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Martinsen from the practice of law in that state on November 10, 2010; this court, on April 7, 2011, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Martinsen, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai#i; service of this court’s notice and order is deemed effective April 18, 2011; and Respondent Martinsen has not appeared or shown cause as to why such discipline should not be imposed. It further appears that Respondent Martinsen cannot be located within the State of Hawai#i and that making this disbarment order effective 30 days after its entry as provided by RSCH Rule 2.1(c) would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), that Respondent Martinsen is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai#i, effective, notwithstanding RSCH Rule 2.16(c), immediately upon entry 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 Martinsen shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 10, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinsen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-martinsen-haw-2011.