Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Leong

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

No. 26910

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

 

‘THOMAS S. LEONG,, Respondent.

 

(ove 03-115-7715)

(ys Moon, ¢.., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, 33.)
upon consideration of (1) the Disciplinary Board’ =
report and recommendation for the disbarment of Respondent Thomas
5. Leong (Respondent Leong), (2) Respondent Leong’s lack of
cbjection as exhibited by the lack of # request by Respondent
Leong to file briefs pursuant to Rule 2.7(d) of the Rules of the
Suprene Court of Havat's (RSCH), and (2) the record, we conclude
that Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Petitioner ODC)
proved by clear and convincing evidence that, while Respondent
Leong represented Joni S1ivoski and Carl Sliwoski, Respondent
Leong conitted the folloving violations of the Havas'i Rules of
Professional Conduct (HRC):
+ one violation of HRPC Rule 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to
provide competent representation to a client)
+ one violation of HREC Rule 1.3 (sequizing a lawyer to

 

act with reasonable diligence!

+ one violation of HRPC Rule 1.4(a) (requiring a lawyer
to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable

requests for information);

LAW LIBRARY

Oats
two violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(a) (1) (requiring a
lawyer in private practice to maintain a trust account
separate from business or personal accounts);

one violation of HRPC Rule 1.15(b) (requiring a lawyer
in private practice to prominently label each trust
account, as well as deposit slips and checks drawn
thereon, as “client trust account”);

two violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (prohibiting a
lawyer from conmingling client funds with the lawyer's
own funds);

two violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (prohibiting @
lawyer from misappropriating client funds for the
lawyer's own use and benefit);

two violations of HPC Rule 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer
to deposit unearned or disputed client funds into a
client trust account);

two violations of HRPC Rule 1.19(4) (requiring a lawyer
to deposit all client funds and unearned retainer fees
into a client trust account);

one violation of HRPC Rule 3.2 (requiring @ lawyer to
make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation
consistent with the legitimate interests of the
client);

one violation of HRPC Rule 3.3 (a) (4) (prohibiting a
lawyer from knowingly offering evidence that the lawyer
knows to be false):

one violation of HRPC Rule 3.4 (b) (prohibiting a

lawyer from falsifying evidence);
+ one violation of HRPC Rule 8.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer
in connection with a disciplinary matter from knowingly
making a false statement of material fact);

+ six violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a
lawyer from violating the Hawai'i Rules of Professional
conduct) + and

+ three violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(c) (prohibiting a
lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) -

We hereby accept and adopt the hearing conmittee’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law for ODC 03-15-7715. We hereby adopt

the Disciplinary Board's recommendation to disbar Respondent

Leong. Cf. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lau, @5 Hawai'i

212, 216, 941 P.2d 295, 299 (1997) (*[W]here misconduct is severe

and extensive and includes misappropriation of clients’ funds, it

would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish sufficiently
strong evidence of mitigation to warrant a penalty lesser than
disbarment.” (citation omitted)). Therefore,

YT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Thomas S. Leong

(attorney number 6002) is disbarred from the practice of law in

Hawai'i, effective thirty (30) days after entry of this order, as

RSCH Rule 2.16(c) provides.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 4, 2005.

ize Prpearnem—
Pants puns ne-