Case Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Matutino Order of Suspension).

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
wo. 27590

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘T
SH

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

 

SHARON V. MATUTINO, Respondent. ie
7

(ope 02-019-7217, Ope 02-083-7281,
ope 03-60-7660, ODC 03-061-7661, ODC 03-203-7803)

(By: Moon, C.J. Levinsons Nakayama, Aeoba, and Duffy, 33.)
Upon consideration of (2) the Disciplinary Board of the

ftavai't Supreme Court's (Disciplinary Board) November 10, 2005
report and reccmendation to suspend Respondent Sharon V.
viatutino (Respondent Matutine) from the practice of law for two
years, and (2) the record, we adopt Petitioner office of
Diseiptinary Counsel (Petitioner OBC) and Respondent Matutino’s
October 12, 2005 stipulation of uncontested facta, conclusions of
law, aggravating factors, and proposed discipline, with the
exception, however, that we adopt only the following four of the
six listed mitigating factors: (1) the absence of @ pricy
disciplinary record for Respondent Matutine; (2) Respondent
atutino's personal or emotional problems; (3) Respondent
tacutino's cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings:
and (4) Respondent Hatutine's remorse for her misconduct. In
um, Respondent Matutino misappropriated and mishandled the funds
of several clients, failed to diligently perform legal services
ina tinely manner for clients, and ratified her associate and/or
enployee, Peter Albrecht’ s, practice of law without ¢ License in
avast. Respondent Matutino's misconduct on multiple occasions

violated the fellowing Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct

ae
(RPC) +

 

 

HRPC Rule 1.1 (requiring that a lawyer shall provide
competent répresentation to a client);

REC Rule 1.3 (requiring that a lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and pronptness in representing a
client);

HRPC Rule 1.15(2) (1) (requiring that every lawyer in
private practice in the State of Hawai'i who receive:
or handles client funds shall maintain a client trust
account into which all funds entrusted to the lawyer's
care shall be deposited);

HRPC Rule 1.15(b) (requiring that each business
account, as well as deposit slips and checks drawn
thereon, shall be prominently labeled “business
account,” “office account,” or appropriate business-
type account);

HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from
misappropriating a client’s funds to his or her own use
and benefit);

HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (requiring that funds belonging in
part to a client and in part presently or potentially
to the lawyer must be deposited into the client trust
account);

HRPC Rule 1.15(d) (requiring that funds entrusted to a
lawyer shall be deposited intact into a trust account);

HRPC Rule 1.15(f) (4) (requiring that a lawyer promptly
pay or deliver to the client, as requested by the
Client, the funds, securities, or other properties in
the possession of the lawyer which the client is
entitled to receive);

HRPC Rule 1.16(d) (requiring that, upon termination of
representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests,
such as refunding any advance payment of a fee that has
not been earned);

HREC Rule 3.2 (requiring that a lawyer shall make
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent
with the legitimate interests of the client):

 

HREC Rule §.3(c) (1) (providing that, with respect to a
nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a
lawyer, the lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of
such a person that would be a violation of the rules of
professional conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the
lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific
conduct, ratifies the conduct involved); and

+ HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (providing that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to violate the rules of
professional conduct).

In light of Respondent Matutino’s egregious ethics violations, as

well as the four mitigating factors, we adopt the Disciplinary

Board’s report and recommendation to suspend Respondent Matutino

from the practice of law for a period of two years. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Sharon V. Matutino
(attorney number 4569) is suspended from the practice of law in
this jurisdiction for @ period of two (2) years, effective
thirty (30) days after entry of this order, as provided by
RSCH Rule 2.16(c) -

IT 18 FURTHER ORDERED that, before Respondent Matutino
may apply for reinstatement, she must, in addition to all other
standards for reinstatement in RSCH Rule 2.17, (1) successfully
complete, at her oxn expense, the Practicing Attorneys Liability
Management Society's practice menagement/law office audit
program, (2) pay restitution to Heather Titus in the amount of
$1,000.00 and pay restitution to Gayle L. Waddingham in the
anount of $400.00, (3) take and pass, at her own expense, the
Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination, and
(4) reimburse the Disciplinary Board for the costs associated
with these disciplinary proceedings.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 24, 2006.

Zoe

Pe Oar

3 Gane, Dain \