Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

DecidedFebruary 8, 2012

DocketSCAD-11-0000162

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington) 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. Partington, (haw 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000162 08-FEB-2012 SCAD-11-0000162 03:52 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

EARLE A. PARTINGTON, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-079-8913)

ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon consideration of Respondent Earle A. Partington’s January 31, 2012 affidavit and the record, it appears that Respondent Partington’s affidavit does not comply with Rule 2.17(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH) (to wit, that an attorney suspended for one year or less aver, for the period of suspension, that he “has complied with the suspension order . . . .”). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Partington’s reinstatement is denied, without prejudice to the filing of an affidavit complying with RSCH Rule 2.17(b). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 8, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /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-11-0000162 08-FEB-2012 SCAD-11-0000162 03:52 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

EARLE A. PARTINGTON, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-079-8913)

ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon consideration of Respondent Earle A. Partington’s January 31, 2012 affidavit and the record, it appears that Respondent Partington’s affidavit does not comply with Rule 2.17(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH) (to wit, that an attorney suspended for one year or less aver, for the period of suspension, that he “has complied with the suspension order . . . .”). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Partington’s reinstatement is denied, without prejudice to the filing of an affidavit complying with RSCH Rule 2.17(b). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 8, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /S/ Craig H. Nakamura

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-partington-haw-2012.