Case Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Blakley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
No, 28494

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'Z

   
   
   
 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,

J.B. MAYLA BLAKLEY,
Respondent .

(ORIGINAL PROCEEDING)
(ODC NOS. 02-026-7224, 05-127-8279, 06-05-8345, 06-066-8406)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Moon, €.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, 33.)

upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board's Report
and Recommendation for the Suspension of J. E. Mayla Blakley and
Respondent Blakley’s lack of objection thereto as exhibited by
her failure to file an answer to the Petition as permitted by
Rule 2.7(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai'i (RSCH) or to request briefing as permitted by RSCH Rule
2.7(€), it eppeare that Respondent Blakley violated RSCH Rules
2.2, 1.2(a), 1.3, 2.4(a), 1.406), 2.28(a) (2), 1.250b), 1.158(e),
2,15(4), 2.25(9) (7), 2.18(h), 1.26(a) (2), 1.16(4), 3.2, 3.4(€),
8.1(b), 8.4(a), €.4(e), and 8.4(4) of the Hawai'i Rules of
Professional Conduct. It further appears that Respondent Blakley
has departed from the State of Hawai'i, and making discipline
effective thirty (30) days after entry of this order, see RSCH
Rule 2.16(c), would be pointless. See Office of Disciplinary

Counsel v, DeMello, 61 Haw. 223, 225, 601 P.2d 1087, 1088 (1979).

aan
‘Therefore,

I? IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board's
Report and Recommendation is rejected, and Respondent J. E. Mayla
Blakley is disbarred from the practice of law in this
jurisdiction, effective upon entry of this order. See Office of
ie! , 85 Hawai'i 212, 225, 941 P.24 295,
298 (1997) ("misappropriation of client funds by the client's
attorney warrants disbarment absent strong mitigating
circunstances*) .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions for
reinstatement,

1. Respondent Blakley shall pay restitution in the
amount of $9,440.80 to Wayne Brumfield.

2. Respondent Blakley shall pay any costs of these
proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of
costs, and shall comply with the requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16
and 2.17.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 14, 2007.

carole R. Richelieu, ha

chief disciplinary counsel “Sect Lcwise

for petitioner <
Pests Co Natagaven
J.B. Mayla Blakley,

respondent pro se a
Gore. Dey th +