Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller

DecidedMarch 9, 2011

DocketSCAD-10-0000226

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller) 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. Miller, (haw 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-10-0000226 09-MAR-2011 09:23 AM

SCAD-10-0000226

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

JANET CLARE MILLER, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-006-8840)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s Petition for Issuance of Reciprocal Discipline Notice, our January 3, 2011 Notice and Order, Respondent Janet Clare Miller’s response to the petition, Disciplinary Counsel’s reply, and the record, it appears Respondent Miller was suspended from practice for one year by the Supreme Court of California by order filed August 4, 2009, and that enforcement of the California suspension order was suspended for two years subject to conditions that include a requirement that she take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam within one year. It further appears Hawai#i rules do not permit suspension of suspension orders and the substantially equivalent discipline in this jurisdiction is a suspension for one year, subject to fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court of California. It further appears that Respondent Miller does not maintain a practice in this jurisdiction and delaying the effective date of this order for thirty days, as provided by Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Miller is suspended from practice in this jurisdiction for one year, effective upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of her reinstatement, Respondent Miller must prove compliance with all of the conditions imposed by the California Supreme Court. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 9, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Craig H. Nakamura

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

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-10-0000226 09-MAR-2011 09:23 AM

SCAD-10-0000226

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

JANET CLARE MILLER, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-006-8840)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s Petition for Issuance of Reciprocal Discipline Notice, our January 3, 2011 Notice and Order, Respondent Janet Clare Miller’s response to the petition, Disciplinary Counsel’s reply, and the record, it appears Respondent Miller was suspended from practice for one year by the Supreme Court of California by order filed August 4, 2009, and that enforcement of the California suspension order was suspended for two years subject to conditions that include a requirement that she take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam within one year. It further appears Hawai#i rules do not permit suspension of suspension orders and the substantially equivalent discipline in this jurisdiction is a suspension for one year, subject to fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court of California. It further appears that Respondent Miller does not maintain a practice in this jurisdiction and delaying the effective date of this order for thirty days, as provided by Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Miller is suspended from practice in this jurisdiction for one year, effective upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of her reinstatement, Respondent Miller must prove compliance with all of the conditions imposed by the California Supreme Court. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 9, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Craig H. Nakamura

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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