Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwartz
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwartz (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwartz) 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-16-0000169 09-JUN-2016 12:04 PM
SCAD-16-0000169
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
KENNETH BRIAN SCHWARTZ,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 16-J-010)
ORDER IMPOSING A PUBLIC REPRIMAND
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a
reciprocal discipline notice upon Respondent Kenneth Brian
Schwartz, filed on March 15, 2016 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), the memorandum and
exhibits appended thereto, and Respondent Schwartz’s timely
response, we note that, on June 18, 2015, Schwartz stipulated
that certain conduct in which he engaged violated Rules 4-1.1, 4
1.3, 4-1.4(a), 4-1.4(b), 4-1.5(f)(1), 4-1.5(f)(5), 4-3.2, 4
8.4(a), 4-8.4(d), 5-1.1(e), 5-1.1(f), and 5-1.2(b)(7) of the
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (RRFB), and agreed to receive a
public reprimand, bear the costs of the proceedings, and complete
a training course in client trust account management. Upon
review of the stipulated facts and Rules violations, we conclude
that the same conduct, if committed in this jurisdiction, would
constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(c),
1.15(c), 1.15(f)(1), 1.15(f)(3), 1.15(f)(4), 1.15(g), and 3.2 of
the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994), and that
none of the circumstances set forth in RSCH Rules 2.15(c)(1)
through 2.15(c)(4) apply to excuse this court from its duty to
impose reciprocal discipline. We also note that, in mitigation,
the matter did not involve fraud or dishonesty and Respondent
Schwartz has a clean disciplinary record, did not have a
dishonest or selfish motive, did not profit personally from the
conduct, suffered medical challenges during a portion of the
relevant period, at all times demonstrated a cooperative attitude
towards the disciplinary proceedings, made full disclosures to
the Florida and Hawai'i Bars, has been certified in Florida as a
workers’ compensation attorney and has participated in
educational programs for the legal community, and is remorseful.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Respondent Kenneth Brian Schwartz
is publicly reprimanded.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Schwartz shall
bear the costs of these reciprocal disciplinary proceedings upon
approval of a timely filed verified bill of costs submitted by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 9, 2016.
/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. Schwartz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-schwartz-haw-2016.