From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Strack

Supreme Court of Hawaii
May 27, 2011
No. SCAD-10-0000250 (Haw. May. 27, 2011)

Opinion

No. SCAD-10-0000250

May 27, 2011.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 08-056-8699, 09-096-8819)

By: RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge NAKAMURA, assigned by reason of vacancy.


ORDER OF SUSPENSION

We have considered the Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation submitted to this court in the matter of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Strack that Respondent Strack be suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a period of one year and one day. We have also given due consideration to the arguments set forth in the briefs filed by both parties in the matter.

It appears that Respondent Strack missed important deadlines in an ongoing immigration matter due to a lack of diligence and then failed to act to correct his lack of diligence in a responsible and timely manner or to refund any of the fees associated with his mistake, causing real harm to the interests of his client. It also appears that Respondent Strack failed to communicate with his clients in a timely manner, misused client funds, failed to maintain required paperwork involving client monies or to manage client funds as required by the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, improperly organized his practice as an LLC, and misrepresented the nature of his law offices, resulting in multiple violations of Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)(3), (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(7), (g)(8) and (g)(9), 7.5(f), and 8.4(a), as well as the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH) Rule 6(g). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Strack is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for one year and one day, effective 30 days after the entry of this order, as provided by RSCH Rule 2.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Strack, in addition to the requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16 and 2.17, as a condition of reinstatement, is required to successfully complete a Practicing Attorneys Liability Management Society (PALMS) program or its equivalent and to reimburse Petitioner for all costs ordered upon a timely submitted bill of costs and any objections thereto.


Summaries of

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Strack

Supreme Court of Hawaii
May 27, 2011
No. SCAD-10-0000250 (Haw. May. 27, 2011)
Case details for

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Strack

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. SCOTT T. STRACK, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: May 27, 2011

Citations

No. SCAD-10-0000250 (Haw. May. 27, 2011)

Citing Cases

Matter of Travis S

( United States v. Minkowitz, supra, at 627.) In determining whether the challenged information falls within…