Schoettle v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000491 15-JUL-2016 10:04 AM

SCPW-16-000491

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

WALTER R. SCHOETTLE, Petitioner,

vs.

THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, and RICHARD A. PLATEL, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

Upon consideration of the May 10, 2016 petition for a

writ of mandmamus submitted by Petitioner attorney Walter R.

Schoettle, this court concludes nothing in the petition or the

attached exhibits supports the conclusion that the Office of

Disciplinary Counsel has violated a duty owed this court, or

abused the discretion delegated to it by this court to

investigate the allegations of misconduct lodged by the

Petitioner. See Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Hawai#i 60, 64-65,

143 P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006); In re Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693-

96 (1999); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme

Court, 91 Hawai#i 51, 57, 979 P.2d 1077, 1083 (1999).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 15, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson