Case Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LePage

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 24616
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

 

THOUS R. LEPAGE, Respondent. :

el
“ 2

(ORIGINAL PROCEEDING)
(ove 00-265-6611, 00-26-6612, 01-136-6880)

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, and Nakayama, JJ., Intermediate Court
of Appeals Judge Watanabe, in place of Acoba, J., who is
unavailable, and Circuit Judge Chang, assigned by ‘reason of
vacancy)

Upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board's Report
and Recommendation for the Suspension of Thomas R. LePage, the
exhibits thereto, the record, and Respondent LePage’s lack of

it appears Respondent LePage committed
1.40),

objection thereto,
multiple violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a),
2.2548) (1), 2.18(b), 1.25(e), 1.18(8), 2.25(E) (3), 1-15(£) (4),
2.1549), 2.26(a) (2), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.4(€), 5.4(a), 5.5(a),
8.1(b), 8-4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Hawai" Rules of
Professional Conduct. It further appears that there were
multiple acts of unethical behavior and a pattern of misconduct.
Respondent LePage also has prior discipline involving similar
(a one year and one day suspension in
qe

professional misconduct
2001) and substantial experience in the practice of law.
finally appears that Respondent LePage was suspended from the
practice of law since November 6, 2001 and has not been
Anstated.

In mitigation, Respondent LePage hi

 

experienced past

 

suffering, shame, and humiliation by virtue of his imprisonment.

ory
Disciplinary Board v, Beran, 60 Haw. 546, 592 P.2d 814 (1979).
Respondent LePage has expressed extreme remorse, and has
denonstrated candor and a cooperative attitude toward these
proceedings. Respondent LePage also had good character and
reputation prior to his ice addiction, had taken steps toward

rehabilitation, and there has been a lengthy pi

 

.ge of time
since his misconduct and the completion of this disciplinary
proceeding. However, where “disciplinary violations are severe
land extensive and include misappropriation of clients’ funds,” as

they do here, disbarment is appropriate. See Office of

Disciplinary Counsel v. Silva, 63 Haw. 585, 594-5957 633 P.2d
538, 545 (1981); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lau, 85

Hawai'i 212, 215-216, 941 P.2d 295, 298 (1997). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Thomas R. LePage is disbarred
from the practice of law in this jurisdiction. ‘The disbarment is

effective from Novenber 7, 2002 (the date of expiration of the

 

November 7, 2001 suspension of one year and one day).

TT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that in addition to any other
requirements for reinstatenent imposed by cur Rules, Respondent
LePage shall pay for all costs relating to this proceeding, as
recommended by the Board.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent LePage shall,

within ten (10) days after the date of this order, file with this
court an affidavit in full compliance with RSCH 2.16(d).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 2, 2007.

Pesca la rnmdine Aner
Cuniak Watanebe,

2 Com WB Ke