Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mujtabaa

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 24, 2015
DocketSCAD-14-0000799
StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mujtabaa (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mujtabaa) 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. Mujtabaa, (haw 2015).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-14-0000799 24-AUG-2015 02:26 PM

SCAD-14-0000799

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs.

KHALED S. MUJTABAA,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 12-042-9058, 13-036-9106)

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)

Upon consideration of the July 14, 2015 affidavit

submitted by Respondent Khaled S. Mujtabaa and the exhibits

attached thereto, as well as this court’s July 1, 2015 order of

clarification and the record, it appears Respondent Mujtabaa has

complied with all of the conditions of his 180-day period of

suspension imposed by this court in its June 24, 2014 order that

are required for reinstatement, and that his July 24, 2015

affidavit complies with Rule 2.17(b)(2) of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH). We note Respondent

Mujtabaa must still file with this court, by January 4, 2016, a report regarding an audit of his practice and evidence of his

compliance with its recommendations, but that his reinstatement

in the interim is not contingent upon the filing of that report.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule

2.17(b)(2), Respondent Mujtabaa is reinstated to the practice of

law in this jurisdiction, effective upon entry of this order.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Mujtabaa is

hereby notified that failure to timely file the required report

by the January 4, 2016 deadline, or to establish good cause

justifying an extension, may result in an additional period of

suspension, upon a review of the record.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 24, 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

Bluebook (online)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mujtabaa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-mujtabaa-haw-2015.