Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Osterloh
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Osterloh (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Osterloh) 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-13-0003192 27-NOV-2013 10:02 AM SCAD-13-0003192
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
DOUGLAS D. OSTERLOH, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-043-9113)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the October 24, 2013 response
filed by Respondent Douglas D. Osterloh in Office of Disciplinary
Counsel v. Osterloh, SCAD-13-0003192, the November 20, 2013
submission by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in
response to this court’s November 14, 2013 order, and the record,
it appears (1) Respondent Osterloh’s October 24, 2013 response
was intended as a petition to resign in lieu of discipline,
pursuant to Rule 2.14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawai#i (RSCH), (2) the notarized affidavit executed by
Respondent Osterloh, submitted by ODC as an exhibit to its
November 20, 2013 response, has been provided to the Disciplinary
Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, as required by RSCH Rule 2.14(a), (3) the affidavit executed by Respondent
Osterloh makes the necessary averments required by RSCH Rules
2.14(a)(1) through (4), including a recognition of the misconduct
which led to his disbarment by the Supreme Court of the State of
Washington, and (4) Respondent Osterloh, facing the reciprocal
disciplinary proceedings, is “[a]n attorney who is the subject of
. . . a pending proceeding involving[] allegations of grounds for
his . . . discipline,” pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.14(a). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH 2.14, that the
petition is granted and Respondent Osterloh’s request to resign
in lieu of discipline is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Osterloh’s
resignation from the practice of law in this jurisdiction shall
become effective 30 days from the date of entry of this order,
pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.14(d) and 2.16(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk shall remove
Respondent Osterloh’s name from the role of attorneys licensed to
practice law in this jurisdiction and (2) within 30 days after
the date of entry of this order, Respondent Osterloh shall submit
to the Clerk of this court the original certificate evidencing
his license to practice law in this jurisdiction, or an affidavit
demonstrating good cause as to why said license cannot be
provided.
2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Osterloh shall
comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(d) by filing an
affidavit of compliance with this court within 10 days after the
effective date of his resignation.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that ODC’s original petition for
reciprocal discipline is denied as moot.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 27, 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. Osterloh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-osterloh-haw-2013.