Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Hawai'i has suspended an attorney from practicing law for two years due to multiple violations of the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney failed to abide by client decisions, demonstrate diligence and promptness in representation, and maintain proper communication with clients. Additionally, the attorney continued representation despite conflicts, did not protect client interests upon termination, failed to expedite litigation, and knowingly disobeyed tribunal obligations. The attorney also engaged in professional misconduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation. Although the Court agreed with the recommended suspension, it found the requirement for participation in the Attorneys and Judges Assistance Program unnecessary. The suspension will commence 30 days after the order, and for reinstatement, the attorney must pay restitution to a client, pass the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination, and reimburse the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for costs incurred during the proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conflict of Interest and Termination of Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney continued representation despite conflicts and did not take reasonable steps to protect clients' interests upon termination, violating HRPC Rules 1.16(a) and 1.16(d).
Reasoning: Continuing representation despite conflicts with professional conduct rules (HRPC Rule 1.16(a)). Not taking reasonable steps to protect clients' interests upon termination of representation (HRPC Rule 1.16(d)).
Failure to Abide by Client Decisions and Consultationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney violated HRPC Rule 1.2(a) by not adhering to clients' decisions regarding representation.
Reasoning: Miki failed to abide by clients' decisions and consult on means of representation (HRPC Rule 1.2(a)).
Failure to Communicate with Clientssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney failed to keep clients informed and did not provide necessary explanations for informed decision-making, violating HRPC Rules 1.4(a) and 1.4(b).
Reasoning: Not keeping clients informed about their cases (HRPC Rule 1.4(a)) and failing to provide necessary explanations for informed decision-making (HRPC Rule 1.4(b)).
Failure to Expedite Litigation and Tribunal Obligationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: By not expediting litigation and disobeying tribunal obligations, the attorney violated HRPC Rules 3.2 and 3.4(e).
Reasoning: Failing to expedite litigation (HRPC Rule 3.2) and knowingly disobeying tribunal obligations (HRPC Rule 3.4(e)).
Lack of Diligence and Promptnesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney breached HRPC Rule 1.3 by not demonstrating reasonable diligence and promptness in handling client matters.
Reasoning: Lacking reasonable diligence and promptness in representation (HRPC Rule 1.3).
Professional Misconduct Involving Dishonestysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney engaged in professional misconduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation, violating HRPC Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(c).
Reasoning: Engaging in professional misconduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation (HRPC Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(c)).