Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartman

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Wo, 27521

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T '

 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner

GARY L. HARTMAN, Respondent

qa

(ope 05-130-8282; 05~146-8298)

 

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner
Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Petitioner ODc) for the immediate
suspension of Respondent Gary L. Hartman (Respondent Hartman)
from the practice of law pursuant to RSCH 2.128, Respondent
Hartman’s response to our order to show cause, and Respondent
Hartnan’s second request for an extension of time to file
menorandum in opposition to suspension of license, it appears
that Respondent Hartman is the subject of an investigation by
Petitioner OD and that while he did not timely respond to each
of Petitioner 0Dc’s attempts to investigate the disciplinary
matters, Respondent Hartman has now responded to each of
grievants’ allegations in DC 05-130-8262 and ODC 05-146-8298.
Although this court could conclude that Respondent Hartman is
guilty of a failure to cooperate with Petitioner DC's
investigation or disciplinary proceeding because of Respondent

Hartman’s failure to respond timely and to appear in response to
@ subpoena, Respondent Hartman's untimely response to our order
to show cause (filed November 2, 2005) addresses the client's
Grievance and attorney Scot Brower’s grievance and provides
sufficient information for Petitioner 0DC to proceed. Therefore,
Anmediate suspension would not be appropriate at this time.
Respondent Hartman is admonished that this court will not be so
lenient with regard to any other failure to cooperate with
Petitioner oc, Accordingly,

IT IS HBREBY ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel's petition for the immediate suspension of Respondent
Gary L. Hartman is denied without prejudice, and this case is
remanded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for such further
proceedings as are appropriate.

I? IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hartman's second
request for an extension of time to file memorandum in opposition
to suspension of license is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'l, November 23, 2005.