Schaefer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Hawaii Supreme Court

Schaefer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

DecidedJuly 22, 2013

DocketSCPW-13-0002165

StatusPublished

This text of Schaefer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Schaefer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel) 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

Schaefer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, (haw 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0002165 22-JUL-2013 10:59 AM

SCPW-13-0002165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STEVEN R. SCHAEFER, Petitioner,

vs.

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

Upon consideration of the June 22, 2013 letter from Steven R. Schaefer, it appears that Mr. Schaefer is seeking review of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s consideration of the complaint Mr. Schaefer filed against attorneys Hayden Aluli and Mimi Desjardins. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall file the June 22, 2013 letter as a petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 22, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

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

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0002165 22-JUL-2013 10:59 AM

SCPW-13-0002165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STEVEN R. SCHAEFER, Petitioner,

vs.

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

Upon consideration of the June 22, 2013 letter from Steven R. Schaefer, it appears that Mr. Schaefer is seeking review of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s consideration of the complaint Mr. Schaefer filed against attorneys Hayden Aluli and Mimi Desjardins. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall file the June 22, 2013 letter as a petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 22, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schaefer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaefer-v-office-of-disciplinary-counsel-haw-2013.