Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nishioka
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nishioka (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nishioka) 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-12-0001113 11-FEB-2013 10:42 AM SCAD-12-00001113
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
GREG I. NISHIOKA, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 12-014-9030, 12-035-9051, 12-048-9064, 12-049-9065, 12-050-9066)
ORDER ALLOWING RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel (ODC)’s “Petition for Order Granting Request of Greg I.
Nishioka to Resign From the Practice of Law in Lieu of
Discipline” and the memorandum, affidavits, and exhibits in
support thereof, it appears the Petition is supported by
Respondent Nishioka’s affidavit and that the affidavit meets the
requirements of Rule 2.14(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the State of Hawai#i (RSCH). In sum, Nishioka admits to failing
to act with reasonable competence or diligence in representing
clients, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about the
status of their matters and promptly complying with their reasonable requests for information, commingling and
misappropriating client funds, failing to promptly render
accurate accountings, failing to return client files or to
provide refunds upon request, falsely communicating the nature of
his practice through the use of a misleading name for his firm,
failing to respond to ODC’s lawful demands for information during
the resulting investigations, and engaging in deceitful conduct,
resulting in forty-seven separate violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3,
1.4(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(f)(3), 1.15(f)(4), 1.16(d),
7.1(a), 7.5(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Hawai#i Rules
of Professional Conduct. It further appears that, because
Respondent Nishioka’s behavior included misappropriation of
client funds, any reinstatement must be predicated upon full
restitution of all misappropriated money. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.14, that
the petition is granted and Respondent Greg I. Nishioka’s request
to resign in lieu of discipline is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the resignation is effective
30 days after the date of this order, as provided by RSCH Rules
2.14(d) and 2.16(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future reinstatement is
conditioned upon proof that Respondent Nishioka has made full
restitution of all misappropriated monies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk shall remove
2 Respondent Nishioka’s name from the role of attorneys licensed to
practice law in this jurisdiction and (2) within thirty days
after entry of this order, Respondent Nishioka shall submit to
the Clerk of this court the original certificate evidencing his
license to practice law in this jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Respondent Nishioka
shall comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 and (2) the
Disciplinary Board shall provide notice of the disbarment as
required by RSCH Rule 2.16(e) and (f).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Nishioka shall
pay to the Disciplinary Board all costs associated with these
proceedings upon the timely submission of a verified bill of
costs, as authorized by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 11, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
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. Nishioka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-nishioka-haw-2013.