Case Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Elkner

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 22535

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

ee

  
 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
Biz
WILLIAM H. ELKNER, Respondent. Be

        

(0DC NOS. 98-075-5566, 98-25-5746, 99-030-5
199-038-5868, 99-075-5905, 99-138-5968,

&
8
=
2
99-446-6276, 00-106-6452) 8

 

pt oF

Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

(ay:
upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board's Report

and Recommendation for the suspension of William H. Elkner, and

the opening, answering, and reply briefs, testimony, and exhibits

in the record, it appears that Respondent Elkner provided

incompetent representation, failed to act with reasonable

Gitigence and promptness in representing a client, mishandled an
application fee, failed to maintain financial records, mislabeled
bank records, failed to provide clients with accurate
accountings, commingled and misappropriated the funds of three of
his clients to his own use and benefit, delayed distributing
settlement proceeds, made false certifications, failed to respond
to lawful denands for information, failed to cooperate during the
course of ethics investigations, and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in multiple

} ghe original order entered
Anadvertentiy omitted ODC Nos. 99:

1d effective on Janvary 17, 2007
16-6276 and 00106-6452 from the caption

 

 

aats
violation of Rules 1.1, 1.4(a), 1-18(a) (1), 1.18(b), 1.28(¢),
1.15(4), 2-15(e), 1.25(£) (3), 1-25(£) (4), 1-18(g), 2-250),
1.16(d), 3-4(e), @-1(b), 8-4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the
Hawaii Rules Of Professional Conduct (*HRPC”). In aggravation,
there was a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct,
a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct, multiple
offenses, vulnerable clients, and bad faith obstruction of the
disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with
rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. In mitigation,
Respondent Elkner has no prior disciplinary record. Respondent
Elkner's personal or emotional problems occurred primarily in
1997, and are outside the relevant period (1998 to 1999, and
continuing thereafter to the filing of the Petition in 2004) of
his professional misconduct and provide no mitigation. In light
of the commingling and misappropriation of client funds and the
lack of strong mitigating factors, see, 2.c., Office of
Disciplinary Counsel v, Silva, 63 Haw. 585, 633 P.2d 938 (1981)
‘and Disciplinary Board v, Kim, 59 Haw. 449, 563 P.2d 333 (1978)
(misappropriation of client funds warrants disbarment absent
strong mitigating circumstances),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent William H. Elkner
is disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction,
effective January 17, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to the
requirements for reinstatement set forth in RSCH 2.17 or other
applicable rules, Respondent Elkner shall not be eligible for

2
reinstatement unless he has (1) complied with any order for
payment of costs entered upon a properly verified bill of costs
submitted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and (2) taken
the RSCH 1.14 Mandatory Professionalism Course at his own

expense.

IT 18 FINALLY ORDERED that all other relief requested

Ae denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 20, 2007.

Gre
Bea errnaer
Deca Cerra Oe

ommas

Gan a, Bags