Case Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gould. S.Ct. Order Denying Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, filed 12/23/2008 [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, filed 04/20/2009 [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Denying Motion Pursuant to Rule 60

Citation: 119 Haw. 265

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

‘000--~

 

 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

BURTON D. GOULD, Respondent.

 

In Re Application for Reinstatement of

BURTON D. GOULD, Petitioner.

|

SEO oz A

No, 22239

O2tt

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

 

NOVEMBER 20, 2008

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.
‘he Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court,
pursuant to Rule 2.17(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the

State of Hawai'i (RSCH), submitted its report and recommendation
on September 26, 2008, recommending that Petitioner Burton D.
could’s “Petition for Reinstatement be granted and that he be
reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Hawai". For

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

the reasons discussed below, we respectfully disagree with the
Disciplinary Board’s recommendation

‘The Disciplinary Board concluded that Gould -- while
suspended -- committed multiple violations of the following
Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) :

(2) Rule 8.4(c) (relating to conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation);

 

(2) Rule 8.4(a) (violating a rule of professional
conduct)

(3) Rule 3.4(e) (knowingly disobeying an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal);
and
(4) Rule $.5(a) (practicing in a jurisdiction
where doing so violates the regulation of the
legal profession)
In our view, Gould's additional violations while suspended,
coupled with his explanations in regard thereto, belie the
Disciplinary Board’s conclusion that Gould "has overcome the
weaknesses which produced the earlier misconduct{.]* Moreover,
given these additional violations, it appears that Gould’s
cavalier disregard of the ethical rules that led to the
underlying five-year suspension has not abated. Consequently, we
deny Gould's petition for reinstatement to the practice of law.
1. BACKGROUND

d's Five-¥é

 

On September 15, 1999, the supreme court rejected the

Disciplinary Board’s recommended one year and one day suspension

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

and suspended Gould for five years.’ The supreme court’s order

stated, in part:
‘The record establishes a cavalier disreaard of clear

Biles regarding settlenent of claims, contingent Tee
Sgrecnents, false statements, and misrepresentat ion.
But for the mitigating fact that Respondent Gould did
ot benefit financially, the egregious nature of
Respondent Gould's actions would merit disbarnent.

 

 

 

(Emphasis added.)
In addition to imposing the five-year suspension, the
suprene court’s order required “full compliance with RSCH [Rule]
2.16(4)* and “restitution to Fireman’s Fund [of] all amounts
[Gould] received . . . that were not subsequently paid to his
client, [the cliest’s) health care providers, or others on (the
client’s} behalf. The supreme court denied Gould’s motion for
reconsideration and awarded costs to the Office of Disciplinary
counsel (OPC). The awarded costs were subsequently paid.

Goula

 

suspension commenced October 15, 1999. Gould
was eligible to apply for reinstatement after April 15, 2002.
Seq RSCH Rule 2.17(b) ("An attorney suspended from practice for
more than one year may not apply for reinstatement until the
expiration of at least one-half of the period of suspension.*).
on October 21, 2005, Gould petitioned the supreme court for

reinstatement. On November 8, 2005, the petition was rejected

Briefly, Gould had failed to prepare and execute a contingent fee
egreenent with hig client in regards to a civil claim. Gould then ~~ without
Ma client's knowledge or authorization =~ settied the claim, signed hie
Ellest’s nane on the release and settlement check, deposived the proceeds into
Eis trust account, and filed » notice of dismissal with prejudice. In 60
doing, Gould violated HREC Rules 1.2(a), 1.5(c), 3.3(a) (1), tla), and

Bate)

 

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

without prejudice to filing with the Disciplinary Board, as
required by RSCH Rule 2.17(c) ("Petitions for reinstatement by a

disbarred or suspended attorney shall be filed with the Board and

   

served upon Counsel ‘The Disciplinary Board received Gould’s
petition for reinstatement on January 22, 2007.
B. Gould's Actions while Suspended

First, Gould did not timely comply with RSCH Rule 2.16.
Indeed, his RSCH Rule 2.16(d) affidavit, due by October 25, 1999,
was not filed until May 1, 2008. Second, between February 1,
2005 and March 8, 2006, ODC received the following complaints
against Gould:

1. 0pC 8165: Tina Bass & Barry Shapiro

According to the hearing committee's findings of fact
(POF) 12, Tina Bass and Barry Shapiro, tenants evicted from
Gould's wife’s Maui property, complained that Gould was using the
designation “J.D.* (or Juris Doctor) after his name on his office

door

   

fs court, in imposing the underlying
, explicitly stated thar Gould's misconduct evinced va cave
Gisrogara of clear rules[.!* tevertheless, Gosld apparently aid not examine
the rules to determine the proper procedure for seeking Teinetatenent. Tf he
had, it ie inconceivable how he could have believed that f:
for reinstatement with the suprene court

RSCH Rule 2.17(c), which clearly states that *(pletitions for
Feinstatenent by a dish ended attorney ahall be filed with the
Bord and served don Counsel." "(Emphasis added.)

   
    

     

  

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

in a letter dated February 21, 2005, Gould explained

that he had two law degrees

 

a Bachelor of Science in Law (or
B.S.L.) and a Bachelor of Laws (or L.L.B.). He indicated he had
contacted Northwestern University School of Law and learned that
Northwestern did not convert their L.L.B.s to J.D.s and promised
to change ‘all signage . . . to Burton D. Gould B.S.L., ..B.*

mm a letter to Gould, dated March 28, 2008, the opc
advised Gould that it had determined that Gould’s ‘improper use
of the signage, ‘J. D.," instead of ‘L.L.8., violated” HRPC
8.4(c) ("conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation") and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating a rule of
professional conduct), but that no discipline would be imposed
because neither Bass and Shapiro nor the legal system were
substantively harmed and because Gould stopped using the *'s.D.’
signage." (Emphasis added.)

2. O”C 8166: James L. Worley-Pali Kai Realtors

on December 29, 2004, under the letterhead of “Burton
D. Gould, J.D.," Gould wrote to *Robert* {James} Worley of *Poly*
(Pali) Kai Realty. The letter indicated that Gould was acting as
tagent for Mr. Alan Bradbury and Ms. Geneen Summer(.]" The
letter complained of mold and fungus in a purchased property and
said *(t]hey would like to resolve this problem without the
intervention of attorneys and protracted litigation.” Worley

wrote to ODC on January 17, 2005 ‘with the concern that Mr.

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Gould, by the tenure [sic] and the J.D. portion of his letter is
possibly acting as an attorney[.]*

During the investigation of the Worley matter, the 0DC
requested from attorney William McKeon, attorney for the
property’s homeowners association, information regarding his
dealings with Gould. In response, McKeon provided copies of
various correspondence, one of which was a November 11, 2004
letter from Gould, as agent for Bradbury and Summer, to McKeon,
attempting to *clarify* the “Bradbury-summer position’ with
regard to the mold/fungus problem. Upon verifying that Gould was
suspended, McKeon wrote to Bradbury and Summer, on November 19,
2004, requesting that any further correspondence cone from
Bradbury, the unit owner, not Gould.

In response to the Worley complaint, Gould stated, in a
letter dated February 7, 2005, that he had “agreed to act as
(Bradbury‘s and Summer’s] agent’ and, with regard to ‘the use of
J.D., [indicated] that is one of my degrees.” In a subsequent

letter to 0DC, dated June 11, 2007, Gould

 

responding
specifically to inquiries regarding his correspondence with

MeKeon

 

stated that he was “acting as an agent and not as an
attorney" and that he had stopped acting as Bradbury's agent when
éeKeon informed him of McKeon’s concerns

As with the Bass/Shapiro complaint, oDC, on April 2,
2008, determined that Gould’s ‘use of the improper signage,

‘.D.," instead of °L.L.B.,' violated" HRPC 8.4(c) (*conduct

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and
HRPC 8.4(a) (violating a rule of professional conduct"), but that
no discipline would be imposed because Worley, McKeon, and the
legal system were not substantively harmed. The oDc’s letter
also recited that ‘our office was instructed to issue you a
letter of caution regarding your violations of HRPC 8.4(c) and
EREC 8.4(a)."
3. 0c 8536: Paul A. Brooke, Esq./Edward Schmitt

Although Gould indicated that he stopped acting as an

in November 2004

agent for Bradbury when McKeon had

   

expressed his concerns about dealing with Gould, he continued to
act as agent for others. More specifically, a year later -- in
November 2005, -- attorney Paul Brooke asked oDC for
“clarification and instructions relative to interacting with"
Gould about Edward Schmitt's worker’s compensation claim. Brooke
indicated that Gould had sent a settlement demand with regard to
the clain and attached a copy of the demand to his request.
Gould also wrote to First Insurance Company ‘as agent for Mr.
Edward Schmitt." Brooke subsequently asked ODC to consider his
letter a formal complaint.

In response to the Brooke complaint, Gould wrote in a

letter dated January 26, 2006 that: (1) he had not held himself

 

out as an attorney authorized to practice law; (2) *[t]he labor

board allows agents without a law license to help injured

 

workers"; (3) “[blut for . . . Brooke’s rudeness, [he] would not

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawaii Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

have known . . . there was 2 ‘problem’*; (4) he did not believe
he had acted improperly: and (5) he believed he was "being
treated unfairly and singled out for selective punishment because
of [his] earlier mistake in judgment (.]*

In a letter dated april 2, 2008, the 0DC concluded
Gould’s letter to First Insurance Company violated ERPC 3.4(e)
("knowingly disobeying] an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal"), HRPC 5.5(a) (*practicling) law in a jurisdiction
where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession"),
and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating the rules of the profession) and
imposed an informal admonition.

4. 00C 8549: DLIR/Gwendolyn Johnson
on March 8, 2006, Gould advised the DLIR that he

repr’

 

ented Gwendolyn Johnson and sought a hearing to determine
whether Johnson was entitled to medical care. The letter

contained no academic degree di

 

ignations. Via letter dated
March 9, 2006, the DLIR director asked Disciplinary Counsel, “Is
a suspended attorney allowed to represent claimants?" Johnson
also applied for a hearing and noted her ‘attorney, Burton Gould,
will be present.*

In response to ODC’s inquiry, Gould asserted that one
could “act as an agent and not do any act that constitutes the
practice of law," but that he had ‘decided not to act as an agent

for anyone at the Department of Labor.*
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

im a letter dated March 16, 2006, Special Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel Alvin Ito advised Gould it was improper for
Gould “to represent an individual in a workers’ compensation
hearing, or to perform any acts that constitute the practice of
law.*? In an undated letter from Gould to attorney Robert Chong
(presumably, employer's attorney), Gould essentially indicated he
was ‘aiding’ Johnson, but “not representing her," and expressed a
willingness to convey ‘a fair offer." Chong declined to
communicate with Gould.

By letter dated April 8, 2008, ODC informed Gould that
his letter to the DLIR violated HRPC 3.4(e) ("knowingly
Gisobey{ing) an obligation under rules of a tribunal"), HREC
5.5(a) (*practic[ing] law in a juris@iction where doing so
violates the regulation of the legal profession"), and HRPC

8.44

 

(violating the rules of professional conduct) and imposed
an informal admonition
C. Goulds Petition for Reinstatement

upon receipt of Gould’s petition for reinstatement, a
hearing committee was appointed and hearings were had in the

usual course.‘ Gould testified and presented witnesses on his

 

 

 

fa letter dated April 2, 2006 from DLIR Director Nelson Befitel to
onc, aefitel indicated that, although DLIR allows son-attorneys to represent a
party in workers’ compensation adsinietrative nearings, “DLIR (would) defer!)
fo ObC on whether a suspended attorney is prohibited from appearing at DLIR
Gdninistrative hearinge under state lowe governing the practice of law."

For 20.

 

«me
Della Au

 

itial nearing committee menbers were Gilbert D. Butson, Chair;
ti, and Dennis Lombards. Belattl was disqualified and Sharon
(continued...)

   
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

own behalf; Michael Lee appeared on behalf of ODC. The hearing
conmittee’s findings sunmarized the testimony provided by Gould
and his witnesses with regard to compliance with suprene court
orders to pay costs and restitution, rehabilitation, fitness to
practice, and competence. The Committee concluded Gould had met
his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
reimbursement for costs, compliance with other court-ordered
requirements, including restitution payment, rehabilitation,
fitness to practice, competence, and compliance with orders and
rules

The Committee acknowledged Gould’s RSCH Rule 2.16(4)
affidavit was not timely and noted *he was suffering from a
severe reactive depression." with regard to compliance with RSCH

Rule 2.17(a), the Committee concluded:

 

 

Applicant substantially complied with RSCE [Rule] 2.17(a)

efor a period of for
fi

Tete: Neel Teant believed

that in a principa!-agent relationship, the principal
controlled the relationship, which distingstshed thie from
an attorney-client velationship, where the attorney
Silegediy controls the relationship. Applicant also
believed chat he could engage in a prineipal-agency
relationship in workers" compensation matters, since DLIR
Nearings officer Kevin Nishihara indicated that there was no
problem with Applicant helping an injured worker as an
agent. Applicant expressed renorse for his conduct, ceased

 

   

 

his actions after it was brought to Obc's attention, id not
appear at any court or administrative hearings for{,) and
id not collect any funde from{,| the above-mentioned
individuals, and resolved these matters with O0C.

*(. continued)

wong vas appointed in her place,

-10-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

(emphasis added.) The Committee acknowledged Gould's compliance
with the rules might "be less than perfect," but concluded he had

set forth in

 

‘established all elements for reinstatem:
RSCH [Rule] 2.17(b).*

The Disciplinary Board ‘accepted and adopted” the
Committee's FOFs, Conclusions of Law (COLs), ané recommendation.
TT, DISCUSSION

We disagree with the conclusions of the Committee and
Board that Gould established the requirements for reinstatement
in our view, Gould's words and actions establish otherwise.

In Fought & Co., Inc, v, Steel Engineering & Erection,
Inc., 87 Hawai'i 37, 951 P.2d 487 (1998), we explored the phrase
“practice of law.’ In part, we said:

‘The legislature recognized that

the practice of law is not linited to appearing
Before the courts.” Te consists, anong other.
things of the giving of advice, the preparation
Of any document or the rendition of any service
fo a tnira party B

 

where such advice, drafting
‘the use of any.
oF advocacy’

 

or 'rendition of service require
Gegree of legal knowledge, ski

 

Similarly, while it has explored the concepts
Gimensions, this court has never foraily defined the term
Spractice of law." in in re Ellis, 55 Haw. 58, 459-60,
522 P.24 460, 461-62 (1974), for example, an unlicensed
individual, wno had *#lled Sumerous papers, signed by
him, including but net limited to, various petitions,
Fequests for service, complaints, claims, joinder in
pleadings and cross-claim, appearances, objections to
Potions, suggestions of recusal, motions to disqualify
Opposing Counsel, other and novel forms of legal pleading -—
fogether with legal nenoranda and appendices thereto,” was
found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
In State v. Gilbert, 68 Haw. 226, 708 ?.24 138 (1985), a
person who wrote toa licensed attorney, claiming to
Fepresant a client, and signed the letter as vattorney for”
the client was determined fo have engaged in the practice of

lav.” More ecently, in Office of Disciplinary cougel v,

 

 

 

   

 

 

-11-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

ay, $5 mawas't 232, 981 P.24 295 (1997), thie court hela
that agreeing to represent a client and accepting retainer
feea, appearing before the Hawai Paroling Authority on
behalf of a client, preparing and signing, as a client's

fey, a motion’ eo continue a cage, and making an
appearance in court as counsel for a client were aspects of
sthe practice of law." [@, at 212-13, 215, 941 P.20 at
285-96, 298

Oar nOldings in Lau and the other cases cited above
are not incompatible with the proposition that che ‘practice
oi law entails far nore shan nerely appearing in cours
‘iogeedings. voreover, other jurisdictions, i seeking to
Getine the ‘practice of lew," have resched a eimilar
conciusion. “The California Suprere Court, for example, has
expressed the position that, for the purposes of that
State's statute restricting the practice of law to "active
nenber{e] of the state Bar," such practice includes *"the
Going and performing [of] services in a court of justice
any matter depending therein throughout its various

 

 

 

    

 

 

and in conformity with the adopted rules of procesure,” (the
Fendering of] legal advice(,] and legel instrument and
Contract preparation(.]"  Bizbe

rior court at tal,
Sth iis, 70-Cal, Sper 2a 308, 308, 969 Pad t, 5 11998)
(quoting Beanie ex rel. Lawvers' 1

89 Cal. 531, 209 -P, 363
tiga

Id. at 45-46, 951 P.2d at 495-96 (emphases added) (some citations

omitted)

FOF 56(n)

(brackets in original)
‘The Committee found:

Gould) erroneously believed that he was not engaging
in the unauthorized practice of lay when be agreed to serve
fas agent for his personal friend, Alan Bradbury, former
clients, Gwendolyn Johnson and Edward Schaitt, and his
belief was due to: (4) that na principal-agent
relationship, the principal controlled the velstioaship,
hich distinguished this from an attorney-client
Felationship, where the attorney allegedly control the
yelationship; and (ii) Kevin Kighihars, DLIR fearinge
Officer, informing (Gould) thar there waa ao problem with
(Gould) ‘helping an injured worker as an agent

 

 

(emphasis added). Indeed, the attorney-client

relationship is a principal-agent relationship. see, e.q., Shin

w.Shin, 96 Hawai'i 122, 127, 27 P.34 398, 403 (App. 2001) (*the

attorney-client relationship is that of principal and agent and,

although an attorney cannot compromise and settle a client's

-12-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

claim without specific authorization to do so, the client is
bound by his or her attorney's acts and/or failures to act within
the scope of attorney's authority. Alt v. Krueger, 4 Haw. App.
201, 207, 663 P.24 1078, 1082 (1983)"). We are, therefore,
perplexed by the Committee’s reconmendation to grant
reinstatement, especially in light of its conclusion that Gould
“substantially complied with RSCH (Rule) 2.17(a), except for a
period of time where he acted as and agent of Alan Bradbury,
Guvendolyn Johnson, and Edvard Schmitt and wrote several letters
on their behalf," COL 73 (emphasis added). rt is apparent that,
notwithstanding Gould’s attempts to distinguish principal-agent
from attorney-client relationships, it is clear that Gould's
representation of Bradbury, Johnson, and Schmitt constituted the
practice law while he was suspended. The Committee, as evinced

by its FOF 56(n) quoted supra, agri

 

1d, having found that Gould
“exxoneously believed that he was not engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law when he agreed to serve as agent(.]*

As more aptly stated by this court in office of

 

Pisciplinary Counsel v, Lau (hereinafter Lau II], @5 Hawai'i 212,
941 P.24 295 (1997):

‘The integrity of the Licensing and

Aieciplinary processes relat:

 

directly challenged when a suspended atromey
‘Sontinuss te practice iv Ta violation ofa
Gsnension order. such a challenge undermines
the integrity of both the legal profession and
the dignity of the courts, and we will not
lenge £0 go unnoticed.

 

 

   

 

(© disbarment 1a generally appropriate when &
swyer intentionally or knowingly violates the

-13-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

tems of a prior disciplinary order. when an
gxder_of suspension is entered on the record ang
Taemay noe

eS Ty
Sharatterize the practice of lav while suapendea
agatvthine but Enowing. for purposes of ABA
Standard 8.2, practicing law while suspende 1s
a {further ace('] of misconduct" Ai a Bae
minimum euch violations and acts of nizconduct
hare the lesa] evsten, the orofessicn, snd the
BubLic By encouraging discemect fox the lax ang

 

 

ihe courte and <2 of
brivilese and arrogance. Thus, ve Rola that
Practicing law white suspended or disbarred
warrants the severe sanctions of suspension or

 

luau, 79 Hawas's at 206-07, 900 P.24 at 762-83 (citations and
Footnotes omizted)

cs S'Such blatant contempt for our rules and orders
merits the’ severest sanction, inasmich as that is che only
Senction that will be sufficient to protect the public.

Lau Il, 85 Hawai'i at 215, 941 P.2d at 298 (emphases added).

 

Gould's practice of law while suspended was treated
with uncharacteristic lightness by oDC and the reviewing board,
and Gould will not, apparently, be the subject of further
disciplinary proceedings. Gould’s actions, however, must be
considered in light of RSCH Rule 2.17(a)’s clear prohibition on
practicing while suspended’, RSCH Rule 2.17(b)'s criteria for
reinstatement, and our previously expressed concern about Gould’s.
“cavalier disregard of clear rules.” Under RSCH Rule 2.17(b):

An attorney suspended from practice for more than one year
Shall not Be reinstated unless he or she can show proc! of
the following by clear and convincing evidence
Eehabilitation, {itness to practice lav, competence and
brdere and culea, ana

rene court, whieh may include the

 

* ASCH Rule 2.17(a) states: ‘No suspended or disbarred attorney may
resune practice until reinstated by order of the suprene court except ae
Provided in Rule 17(d) [(related to administrative suspensions for nonpayment
ef bar dues) |”

   

a1
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

guccesaful completion of requirements for passing the bar
No alspended or disbarred attorney shall be eligible
for reinstatenent except upon a stewing that he or she has.
sh ths ineiuaing
those incurred under ASCH (Rule) 2-20, Tf any, and the
Tamyers" Fund for Client Protection for monies paid out on
secount of the attorney's conduct, together with interest at
fe Hawai'i statutory Judament rate:

 

 

(Emphases added.) We address each of aforementioned areas as it
relates to Gould's showing before the Committee.
1. Rehabilitation
In attempting to prove rehabilitation, Gould pronised

the Committee he would, in sum:

+ get written authority to settle matters for a
client;

+ communicate settlement offers to clients in
writing;

+ dismiss lawsuits only with the client’s written
authority:

+ have his clients sign release or settlement
agreements; and

+ not use a power of attorney to sign releases and

Settlenents for clients
im response to examination before the hearing committee, Gould
also said he was renorseful about his prior conduct *and would
apologize to [his former client] for his prior conduct, if she
was present at the hearing.

To the extent that Gould’s promises show cognizance of
the rules and his willingness to comply with then, che most that
can be said is that Gould’s knowledge of the requirements of the
HREC are limited to those governing settlement matters, ise.

those rules that he violated and which served as the basis for

 

the underlying five-year suspension. In fact, Gould’s improper

-1s-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

use of signage in violation of HRPC 8.4 and attempts to represent
clients and negotiate their claims while suspended in violation
of Rules 3.4, 5.5, and 8.4 demonstrate his limited knowledge of
our ethical rules. Moreover, as previously stated, Gould was
nade aware that some people might view his actions as engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law when he learned of McKeon’s and
Worley’s concerns. Nevertheless, despite those concerns, Gould
apparently never questioned whether there might be some merit to
to the view that he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law. A prudent person in Gould’s position would, at minimum,
have sought advice from the ODC so as to avoid risking any
further ethical violations. Indeed, as observed by this court in
LauIl, *{w]hen an order of suspension is entered on the record
and the rules clearly provide that the practice of law may not be
resumed except pursuant to an order of this court, it strains
credulity to characterize the practice of law while suspended as
anything but knowing. Lau I, 85 Hawai'i at 215, 941 P.2@ at
298. Finally, Gould’s practicing while suspended shows his
continuing cavalier disregard of the rules governing attorneys.
Even if we take at face value Gould's explanation that his
representation was merely that of principal-agent, such
explanation evinces a clear and substantive lack of understanding

about the nature of the attorney-client relationship.

-16-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

2. Fitness to Practice Law

With regard to fitness to practice law, Gould

testified:

+ he read publications, such as the Pacific
Reporter, Hawaii Reports, Annotated Law Reports,
and Corpus Juris Secundum;

+ he was current with statutory and case law in
areas of workers’ compensation and personal
injury: and

+ he tried to keep current with the HRPC.

Gould also described workers’ compensation personal injury
appellate cases, and he responded to questions about application
of the ERPC.

3. Competence & Compliance with Disciplinary Orders and
Rules

In addition to testifying on his ow behalf, Gould (and
the committee menbers) solicited testimony from Attorney Andrew
Von Sonn, John P. Dunbar, Peter Hart, and Gould's secretary, Any
Yorke. In sum, Yorke testified that she notified each of Gould's
clients about Gould’s suspension, advised the clients “to
consider Von Son's services or seek substitute counsel,” and
helped Gould close his trust and business accounts. According to
Gould, he testified he did not have anybody's money" in
accounts, he did not know what he did with his trust account, and
that ‘maybe [Yorke] closed” his trust and business account.

With regard to the late filing of the RScH Rule 2.16(4)
affidavit, Gould acknowledged he was supposed to file the

affidavit by October 25, 1999, but testified he ‘was depressed,

-17-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

clinically depressed” and that he filed the affidavit in
2008 at Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Michael Lee's suggestion.
Although Gould's psychiatrist wrote that Gould suffered fron
Gepression in October 1993, there is no indication in the record
that his depression continued from that time until he filed the
required-affidavit in May 2008, over eight years after it was
ue. Thus, in sum, Gould's testimony verifies that he did not
comply with yet another rule, i.e., RSCH Rule 2.16(é) -- again,
Genonstrating a continuing cavalier disregard for rules.
4. Other Requirements Imposed by the Supreme Court

The Committee found that Gould complied with other
supreme court requirements; specifically, the requirement to pay
restitution to Fireman's Fund. The finding is supported by a
letter from a Firenan’s Fund *Clains Clerical Sr. Associate" that
attests to the payment.

5. Reimbursement for costs

‘The Committee found, and the suprene court's records
verity, that Gould paid the costs imposed by the suprene court’s
suspension order and subsequent cost order.

Based on the foregoing, the Committee concluded that
Gould ‘substantially complied with RSCH [Rule] 2.17(a),* COL 73
(emphasis added); however, we fail to see how the Coamittee could
so conclude and, at the same time, state, “except for a period of
time where he acted as an agent of Alan Bradbury, Gwendolyn
Johnson, and Edward Schmitt and wrote several letters on their

-18-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

behalf.” COL 73 (emphasis added). Moreover, although Gould has
seemingly stopped the representations set out above when concerns
about then were raised, any conclusion that he has stopped
practicing while suspended is undercut by his ow testimony that
he is still helping people, but that he is not leaving a paper
trail. Specifically, Gould testified:

Q.__((By Butson)}: Can you understand from these
Kind of comments, why people might get the impression that
you continues to practice law in sup rosa-type setting?
‘a. ((By Gould)]: Yes, sir. That’ why 1 stopped,
r -- 1 wasn’t trying £0 practice law. “Again, the Labor
Board, those Labor Hoard cases was the ony case cutside of
ry friend, Alan Bradbury, where I wrote a letter as an
agent. There isn't. any paper I generated other than that
Becasze 7 saw how that was received or perceived, and T said

 

 

 

why help anybody. But T still hel Saeed
= or in any legal manner,
Q tSa you don't leave a paper trail?

 

y yeah, but X don't leave a paper teail
Pdon't +t don’t really benelit. from
any of this except helping somebody sles, 1 mean it’s Just

nd t agree, and I paid for my Dig

 

   

Based on a review of the FOFs and Cols, the record, and
transcripts in this case, we conclude that Gould has not met his
burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that his
petition for reinstatement should be granted.
IIT. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing and given this court’s
vultimate responsibility to regulate the practice of law in this
state and to ensure that the integrity of the profession is
maintained by disciplining attorneys who indulge in practices
inconsistent with the high ethnical standards denanded of all

members of the bar," Akinaka v. Disciplinary ad, of the Hawai'i

-19-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i $1, 5:

 

58, 979 P.24 1077, 1083-84
(1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), we
cannot agree with the Board's recommendation to grant Gould's

petition for reinstatement. Accordingly, Gould's petition for

 

reinstatement to the practice of law in the State of Hawai'i is

Sfre—
BarG irre ~
Paste Carry Bree

0

Caner

denied,

-20-