Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ueoka
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ueoka (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ueoka) 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-12-0000686 14-FEB-2014 11:03 AM
SCAD-12-0000686
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
B. LADD UEOKA, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 09-067-8790, 09-068-8791, 09-099-8822)
ORDER ALLOWING RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Acoba, McKenna, Pollack, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard, in place of Nakayama, J., recused)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel (ODC)’s “Petition for Order Granting Request of B. Ladd
Ueoka to Resign From the Practice of Law in Lieu of Discipline”
and the memorandum, affidavits, and exhibits in support thereof,
it appears the Petition is supported by Respondent Ueoka’s
affidavit and that the affidavit meets the requirements of Rule 2.14(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i
(RSCH). In sum, Ueoka admits to failing to act with reasonable
diligence in representing clients, failing to keep clients
reasonably informed about the status of their matters and
promptly complying with their reasonable requests for
information, mishandling, commingling, and misappropriating
client funds, failing to promptly render accurate accountings,
failing to provide refunds upon request, failing to maintain
required bookkeeping records, and failing to respond to ODC’s
lawful demands for information or otherwise cooperate during the
resulting investigations, resulting in multiple violations of
Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(a)(1), 1.15(c), 1.15(d),
1.15(f)(1), 1.15(f)(3), 1.15(f)(4), 1.15(g), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d)
of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct in effect at the
time of the conduct. It further appears that, because Respondent
Ueoka’s behavior included misappropriation of client funds, any
reinstatement must be predicated upon full restitution of all
misappropriated money. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.14, that
the petition is granted and Respondent B. Ladd Ueoka’s request to
resign in lieu of discipline is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the resignation is effective
30 days after the date of this order, as provided by RSCH Rules
2.14(d) and 2.16(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future reinstatement is conditioned upon proof that Respondent Ueoka has made full
restitution of all misappropriated monies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk shall remove
Respondent Ueoka’s name from the role of attorneys licensed to
practice law in this jurisdiction and (2) within thirty days
after entry of this order, Respondent Ueoka shall submit to the
Clerk of this court the original certificate evidencing his
license to practice law in this jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Respondent Ueoka shall
comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 and (2) the
Disciplinary Board shall provide notice of the disbarment as
required by RSCH Rule 2.16(e) and (f).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Ueoka shall bear
the costs associated with these proceedings upon the timely
submission of a verified bill of costs, as authorized by RSCH
Rule 2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#, February 14, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
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. Ueoka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-ueoka-haw-2014.