Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Hawai#i has issued an order denying Ronald G.S. Au's motion for reconsideration regarding his application for reinstatement as an attorney. The court previously denied Au's reinstatement on January 10, 2011, based on evidence that he practiced law while suspended, which violates Rule 2.17(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i. The court noted that Au was not charged with unauthorized practice of law under HRS 605-2 and 605-14 but failed to demonstrate compliance with all relevant disciplinary orders and rules as required by RSCH Rule 2.16. The court found Au's arguments concerning notice and opportunity to be heard to be unfounded, as the record showed he had ample opportunity to present his case. The order was signed by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and other justices on February 22, 2011.
Legal Issues Addressed
Notice and Opportunity to be Heardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the applicant's arguments about lack of notice and opportunity to be heard to be unfounded, noting he had ample opportunity to present his case.
Reasoning: The court found Au's arguments concerning notice and opportunity to be heard to be unfounded, as the record showed he had ample opportunity to present his case.
Reinstatement of Attorneys under RSCH Rule 2.16subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied reinstatement due to the applicant's failure to demonstrate compliance with all relevant disciplinary orders and rules.
Reasoning: The court noted that Au was not charged with unauthorized practice of law under HRS 605-2 and 605-14 but failed to demonstrate compliance with all relevant disciplinary orders and rules as required by RSCH Rule 2.16.
Unauthorized Practice of Law and Rule 2.17(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of reinstatement was based on evidence of the applicant practicing law while suspended, violating Rule 2.17(a).
Reasoning: The court previously denied Au's reinstatement on January 10, 2011, based on evidence that he practiced law while suspended, which violates Rule 2.17(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i.