Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ostendorp
Opinion
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAD-15-0000081
17-JAN-2017
12:39 PM
SCAD-15-0000081
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL G.M. OSTENDORP,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC CASE NO. 10-057-8891)
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the December 23, 2016 petition
and affidavit submitted by Respondent Michael G.M. Ostendorp and
the record, it appears Respondent Ostendorp has complied with all
relevant requirements upon which his six-month period of
suspension from the practice of law is contingent, and has
complied with the requirements of Rule 2.16 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH), though we note Respondent Ostendorp still must complete an audit of his practice
as provided in this court’s May 3, 2016 order. It further
appears the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was served notice of
the affidavit, as required by RSCH Rule 2.17(b). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.17(b), Respondent Ostendorp is reinstated to the practice of law in the jurisdiction of the State of Hawai'i, effective upon entry of this order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 17, 2017.
/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
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ostendorp (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ostendorp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.