Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Russell

Hawaii Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Russell

DecidedMay 23, 2011

DocketSCAD-11-0000358

StatusPublished

This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Russell (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Russell) 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. Russell, (haw 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000358 23-MAY-2011 09:54 AM SCAD-11-0000358

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

VICKERY J. RUSSELL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 09-108-8831, 09-109-8832, 09-110-8833, 09-111-8834)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board’s report and recommendation to disbar Respondent Vickery J. Russell, Russell’s lack of objection thereto, and the record, it appears that in the representation of three clients and the investigation of the complaints, Russell violated Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a), Rule 1.15(a)(1), Rule 1.15(c), Rule 1.15(d), Rule 1.15(f)(3), Rule 1.16(d), Rule 3.4(e), Rule 8.4(a), Rule 8.4(c), and Rule 8.4(d), as well as Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH) Rule 17(d)(1). It further appears that the Respondent Vickery J. Russell cannot be found within the State and that she no longer maintains a practice in Hawai'i and, therefore, the disbarment effective thirty (30) days after the entry of this order, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(c), would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Russell is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai'i effective, notwithstanding Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, immediately upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of

reinstatement, in addition to the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16,

Russell shall pay restitution as follows:

To Alan Cabos, the amount of $2,000.00;

To Charlene P. Kuhia, the amount of $7,500.00; and

To James Wayne Shamblin, the amount of $4,500.00.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, Respondent Russell shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 23, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000358 23-MAY-2011 09:54 AM SCAD-11-0000358

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

VICKERY J. RUSSELL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 09-108-8831, 09-109-8832, 09-110-8833, 09-111-8834)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board’s report and recommendation to disbar Respondent Vickery J. Russell, Russell’s lack of objection thereto, and the record, it appears that in the representation of three clients and the investigation of the complaints, Russell violated Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a), Rule 1.15(a)(1), Rule 1.15(c), Rule 1.15(d), Rule 1.15(f)(3), Rule 1.16(d), Rule 3.4(e), Rule 8.4(a), Rule 8.4(c), and Rule 8.4(d), as well as Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH) Rule 17(d)(1). It further appears that the Respondent Vickery J. Russell cannot be found within the State and that she no longer maintains a practice in Hawai'i and, therefore, the disbarment effective thirty (30) days after the entry of this order, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(c), would serve no purpose. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Russell is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai'i effective, notwithstanding Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, immediately upon entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of

reinstatement, in addition to the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16,

Russell shall pay restitution as follows:

To Alan Cabos, the amount of $2,000.00;

To Charlene P. Kuhia, the amount of $7,500.00; and

To James Wayne Shamblin, the amount of $4,500.00.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, Respondent Russell shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 23, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Russell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-russell-haw-2011.