Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith) 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-15-0000785 09-SEP-2016 07:59 AM
SCAD-15-0000785
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
ISAAC K. SMITH, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-015-9085)
ORDER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, in place of McKenna, J., recused)
Upon consideration of the October 26, 2015 Report and
Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
the State of Hawai#i, concerning the actions of Respondent
Isaac K. Smith, and upon a de novo review of the record and the
briefs submitted, this court finds and concludes the following,
by clear and convincing evidence.
On August 9, 2012, Respondent Smith, in order to pay a
personal debt, intentionally deposited $14,361.26 of personal
funds into his First Hawaiian Bank client trust account ending in x128. This conduct violated Rule 1.15(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of
Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994). On August 13, 2012,
Respondent Smith issued a $12,168.67 check from the client trust
account to the management company of his rental unit, for partial
payment of maintenance fees, late fees, lease rent, and
attorneys’ fees and costs for which he was in arrears, and
transmitted the check to the management company. This conduct
violated HRPC Rule 1.15(e).
In aggravation, we find Respondent Smith has extensive
experience in the practice of law and two prior disciplinary
matters on his record. In mitigation, we find Respondent Smith
has taken responsibility and expressed remorse for his actions
and has evinced, in the past, good character and reputation,
including commitment to public service and the provision of legal
services to the indigent, and we further find that none of
Respondent Smith’s clients suffered any injury as a result of his
actions in the present matter. In light of the above, we
conclude a public reprimand is warranted. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 2.3(a)(4) of
the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH)
the Disciplinary Board shall impose, with the consent of the
Disciplinary Counsel and Respondent Smith, a public reprimand on
Respondent Smith.
2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty days from the
date of this order, the Disciplinary Board shall file in the
record a notice that the discipline was imposed or that the
Disciplinary Counsel and/or Respondent Smith do not consent to
the discipline.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Smith shall pay
all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely
submission of a bill of costs, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 9, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Craig H. Nakamura
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. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-smith-haw-2016.