Schoettle v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
This text of Schoettle v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Schoettle 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.
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Schoettle v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoettle-v-office-of-disciplinary-counsel-haw-2016.