SCAD-13-0000423

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

ROBERT VINCENT FERRIGNO, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 07-125-8585, 10-071-8905)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

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

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of

the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of

Hawai#i, the briefs submitted by Respondent Robert V. Ferrigno

and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), and the record,

this court reaches the following findings and conclusions by

clear and convincing evidence.

In ODC Case No. 07-125-8585, Respondent Ferrigno

tendered $275,000 in settlement money on the assumption a

settlement had been reached, but before he had secured and

executed a final written agreement expressly releasing his client

from further litigation in the foreclosure action brought by the

opposing party, or an assignment of the unsecured $500,000 debt

to his client, asserting it was the duty of opposing counsel to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-13-0000423

22-AUG-2013

12:33 PM
provide the agreement, in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Hawai#i

Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC). Respondent Ferrigno failed

to timely communicate the details of the purported settlement to

his client, or to inform her of the amount of her funds he

proposed to transfer to opposing counsel, or that he proposed to

do it without securing an executed settlement document releasing

her from litigation or obtaining an assignment of the unsecured

$500,000 debt to her, in violation of HRPC Rules 1.4(a) and (b). 

We note his actions required his client to obtain new legal

counsel and to expend over $100,000 in additional legal fees. 

Respondent Ferrigno failed to inform his client in a timely

manner of the basis or rate of his fee, in violation of HRPC Rule

1.5(b). Respondent Ferrigno entered into a purported settlement,

and transferred client funds of $275,000 toward that settlement,

without informing either client in the dual representation of the

purported final conditions of the settlement, in violation of

HRPC Rule 1.8(g). Respondent Ferrigno transferred, using a

counter check, the $200,000 of his client’s funds directly from

his client trust account to JSF Investments, LLC, a company

solely owned by him, which he formed for purposes of investment,

rather than to himself via his business account, in violation of

HRPC Rules 1.15(b) and (e). Upon transferring such a substantial

amount of his client’s money to opposing counsel during ongoing

negotiations of a yet-to-be-reached final executed settlement,

and by transferring $200,000 of the funds to his own investment

account in the belief a settlement had been achieved, Respondent

Ferrigno owed his client a timely accounting of that activity,

2
which he did not provide, thereby violating HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(3).

The record, however, does not support the conclusion, by clear

and convincing evidence, that Respondent Ferrigno transferred the

monies in question without the permission or acquiescence of his

client, and, therefore, the record does not support the

conclusion that Respondent Ferrigno misappropriated the funds in

question, in violation of HRPC Rule 1.15(c) and (d). Nor does

the record support the conclusion, by clear and convincing

evidence, that the dual representation was clearly unreasonable

or that Ferrigno failed to inform both clients of the potential

conflicts of the dual representation or failed to obtain their

consent, and, therefore, does not support the conclusion

Respondent Ferrigno violated HRPC Rule 1.7(b).

In ODC Case No. 10-071-8905, this court concludes by

clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Ferrigno failed to

file required general excise and income tax returns in 2006 and

2007, each of the four failures representing a separate violation

of HRPC Rule 8.4(b).

In aggravation, this court finds Respondent Ferrigno

had substantial experience in the practice of law at the time of

the misconduct, finds multiple offenses in the present matter,

and notes Respondent Ferrigno has one prior discipline, a 2007

informal admonition for similar misconduct. In mitigation, the

court notes Ferrigno’s cooperative attitude during the

investigation and the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore,

suspension being appropriate, see ODC v. Kugiya, No. 24948

(August 22, 2002); ODC v. Yoshino, No. 26781 (November 29,

3
2005); ODC v. Marn, No. 21336 (March 13, 1998); ODC v. Miyasaki,

No. 15816 (February 18, 1992); ODC v. Loo, No. 10799 (April 18,

1986), 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Ferrigno is

suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a

period of one year and one day, effective 30 days after the date

of entry of this order, as provided by Rules 2.3(a)(2) and

2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i

(RSCH).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Ferrigno shall

pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely

submission of a bill of costs, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Ferrigno shall,

within ten days after the effective date of his suspension, file

with this court an affidavit in full compliance with RSCH Rule

2.16(d).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 22, 2013. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

4