Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rountree
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rountree (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rountree) 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-14-0000797 07-JUL-2014 10:55 AM
SCAD-14-0000797
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
LESLIE CLARKE ROUNTREE II,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 14-022-9165)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel’s May 2, 2014 petition for issuance of a reciprocal
discipline notice to Respondent Leslie Clarke Rountree II,
pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawai'i (RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits
appended thereto, the May 8, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline
issued by this court, and the record, it appears that, on
December 3, 2013, the Supreme Court of California disbarred
Respondent Rountree for failing to provide competent
representation, failing in one instance to provide any service of
value to his client, failing to properly supervise his employees,
willfully failing to return unearned fees, willfully sharing a
legal fee with non-lawyers, commingling his personal funds with
client funds in his trust account, willfully failing to maintain
client funds in a trust account and engaging in an act of moral
turpitude by misappropriating for his own use and benefit
settlement funds owed to a third party, which, if committed in
this jurisdiction, would represent violations of HRPC Rules 1.3,
1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 5.3(b), 5.4(a), and 8.4(c). It
further appears that this court’s May 8, 2014 Notice of
Reciprocal Discipline was served on Respondent Rountree on
May 15, 2014 and, by the terms of the May 8, 2014 order, RSCH
Rule 2.15(b), and Rule 6(a) of the Hawai'i Rules of Civil
Procedure, Respondent Rountree had until June 16, 2014 to
respond to the Notice with any reasons as to why reciprocal
discipline should not be imposed upon him. Respondent Rountree
has failed to respond and a review of the record and precedent
demonstrates, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and (d), that
reciprocal discipline is authorized and justified. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Leslie Clarke
Rountree II is disbarred from the practice of law in this
jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(1) and 2.15(c),
effective thirty days after the entry of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Rountree shall,
in accordance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d), file with this court within
10 days after the effective date of his disbarment, an affidavit
showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Rountree shall
bear the costs of these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant to RSCH
Rule 2.3(c), upon the timely submission of a verified bill of
costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 7, 2014.
/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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rountree, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-rountree-haw-2014.