From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Aug 3, 2021
No. SCAD-20-0000403 (Haw. Aug. 3, 2021)

Opinion

SCAD-20-0000403

08-03-2021

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. EARLE A. PARTINGTON (HI Bar No. 1568), Respondent.


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 19-0297)

Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Ginoza, in place of Wilson, J., recused, and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard, assigned by reason of vacancy)

ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT

Upon consideration of Respondent Earle A. Partington's July 30, 2021 declaration and the record in this matter, it appears that Respondent Partington's declaration does not comply with Rule 2.17(b)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH) (to wit, that an attorney suspended for one year of less aver, for the period of suspension, that the attorney "has complied with the suspension order . . . .") . Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Partington's reinstatement is denied, without prejudice to the filing of an affidavit, or a declaration as authorized by Rule 52 of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure, complying with RSCH Rule 2.17 (b) (2) .


Summaries of

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Aug 3, 2021
No. SCAD-20-0000403 (Haw. Aug. 3, 2021)
Case details for

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. EARLE A. PARTINGTON (HI Bar…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Aug 3, 2021

Citations

No. SCAD-20-0000403 (Haw. Aug. 3, 2021)