Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

DecidedJune 10, 2020

DocketSCAD-20-0000403

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 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX 10-JUN-2020 01:44 PM

SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

EARLE A. PARTINGTON (HI Bar No. 1568), Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 19-0297)

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

Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice upon Respondent Earle A. Partington, filed on June 1, 2020 by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (RSCH), and the declaration and exhibits appended thereto, we find that, on April 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of California entered an order, disbarring Respondent Partington. In light of the above, RSCH Rule 2.15(b) requires issuance of a notice to Respondent Partington that imposition of the same or substantially equivalent discipline will be imposed upon him, pursuant to RSCH 2.15(c), in the State of Hawaii, unless he shows cause as to why such discipline is unwarranted. Finally, the record does not conclusively establish whether Respondent Partington is in the State of Hawaii. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ODC shall, in accordance with the service requirements of RSCH Rule 2.11(a), attempt personal service upon Respondent Partington of both this Notice and Order and a certified copy of the disbarment order of the Supreme Court of California. If ODC determines Respondent Partington cannot be located within the state, ODC may file a declaration with this court to that effect and execute service by registered or certified mail, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.11(a), to the address registered by Respondent Partington with the Hawaii State Bar Association. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Partington shall inform this court, within 30 days after service of this notice upon him, of his claim(s) and the reasons therefor as to why an equivalent or substantially equivalent discipline in the State of Hawaii is unwarranted. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 10, 2020. /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

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX 10-JUN-2020 01:44 PM

SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

EARLE A. PARTINGTON (HI Bar No. 1568), Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 19-0297)

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

Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice upon Respondent Earle A. Partington, filed on June 1, 2020 by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (RSCH), and the declaration and exhibits appended thereto, we find that, on April 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of California entered an order, disbarring Respondent Partington. In light of the above, RSCH Rule 2.15(b) requires issuance of a notice to Respondent Partington that imposition of the same or substantially equivalent discipline will be imposed upon him, pursuant to RSCH 2.15(c), in the State of Hawaii, unless he shows cause as to why such discipline is unwarranted. Finally, the record does not conclusively establish whether Respondent Partington is in the State of Hawaii. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ODC shall, in accordance with the service requirements of RSCH Rule 2.11(a), attempt personal service upon Respondent Partington of both this Notice and Order and a certified copy of the disbarment order of the Supreme Court of California. If ODC determines Respondent Partington cannot be located within the state, ODC may file a declaration with this court to that effect and execute service by registered or certified mail, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.11(a), to the address registered by Respondent Partington with the Hawaii State Bar Association. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Partington shall inform this court, within 30 days after service of this notice upon him, of his claim(s) and the reasons therefor as to why an equivalent or substantially equivalent discipline in the State of Hawaii is unwarranted. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 10, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

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-2020.