Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Yamamoto
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Yamamoto (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Yamamoto) 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 SCPR-XX-XXXXXXX 06-MAY-2019 02:16 PM
SCPR-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL O. YAMAMOTO, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 19-0062)
ORDER ALLOWING RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition submitted by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel, with the approval of the
Disciplinary Board of the Hawai#i Supreme Court, for an order
granting the request of attorney Michael O. Yamamoto to resign
from the practice of law in lieu of discipline, and the affidavit
attached in support thereof, we find Respondent Yamamoto’s
affidavit meets the requirements of Rule 2.14(a) of the Rules of
the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and find
Respondent Yamamoto avers and admits to misconduct that we
conclude represents serious violations of Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c) (2014). We conclude this misconduct justifies granting
the petition. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign in
lieu of discipline is granted. The resignation shall become
effective 30 days after the date of this order, pursuant to RSCH
Rules 2.14(d) and 2.16(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court
shall remove Michael O. Yamamoto’s name from the role of
attorneys licensed to practice law in this jurisdiction and,
within thirty days after entry of this order, Respondent Yamamoto
shall submit to the Clerk the original certificate evidencing his
license to practice law in this jurisdiction or an affidavit
establishing good cause for his failure to do so.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Yamamoto shall
comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 governing
disbarred attorneys, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of Hawai#i shall provide notice of the disbarment as
required by RSCH Rule 2.16(e), and the Clerk shall provide notice
to all state judges, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(f).
pay the costs of ODC’s investigation and any preliminary
disciplinary proceedings upon the timely submission by ODC of a
verified bill of costs, as authorized by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
2 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this court reserves
jurisdiction to determine, based upon subsequent submission of
documentary evidence from the parties, the final amount due in
restitution, which shall be paid in full as a precondition for
any future petition for reinstatement from Respondent Yamamoto.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 6, 2019.
/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. Yamamoto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-yamamoto-haw-2019.