Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCAD-14-0001377 

13-APR-2015 

08:09 AM 

SCAD-14-0001377
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,


Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

MARK L. WEBER,


Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(ODC 14-063-9206)
 

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
 

Counsel’s December 22, 2014 petition for issuance of a reciprocal
 

discipline notice to Respondent Mark L. Weber, pursuant to Rule
 

2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i 

(RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto,
 

the December 30, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline issued by
 

this court, and the record, it appears that, on April 8, 2014,
 

the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Weber for
 

stealing numerous checks from his firm’s accounts, forging the
 

firm’s signatory attorney’s signature or otherwise altering them,
 

and converting the $11,126.00 in proceeds to his own use and
 
benefit, over a twelve-month period, despite being given repeated 

chances by his law firm to reform his conduct, thereby, in the 

conclusion of the California Supreme Court, “wilfully engag[ing] 

in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.” The 

California Supreme Court found no factors in mitigation, and 

found, in aggravation, that Weber demonstrated bad faith, 

dishonesty, indifference toward rectification or atonement for 

the harm inflicted on others, and contempt for the disciplinary 

proceedings. Such conduct, if committed in this jurisdiction, 

would represent violations of HRPC Rules 8.4(c) and 8.4(g) and 

justify disbarment. It further appears that this court’s 

December 30, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline was served on 

Respondent Weber on February 19, 2015 and, by the terms of the 

December 30, 2014 order, RSCH Rule 2.15(b), and Rule 6(a) of the 

Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent Weber had until 

March 23, 2015 to respond to the Notice with any reasons as to 

why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed upon him. 

Respondent Weber has failed to respond and a review of the record 

and precedent demonstrates, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and 

(d), that reciprocal discipline is authorized and justified. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Mark L. Weber is
 

disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, pursuant
 

to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(1) and 2.15(c), effective thirty days after
 

2
 
the entry of this order.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Weber shall, in
 

accordance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d), file with this court within 10
 

days after the effective date of his disbarment, an affidavit
 

showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d). 


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Weber shall bear
 

the costs of these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant to RSCH Rule
 

2.3(c), upon the timely submission of a verified bill of costs by
 

the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 13, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

3