Opinion ID: 2614643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Complaining Witness Seeks Supreme Court Review

Text: In December, 1998, by letter to Associate Justice Steven Levinson, recused, the Complaining Witness's attorney wrote to the Hawaii Supreme Court, as the overseer of the ODC. [11] The letter was not, he said a writ of mandamus, but [was] in the nature of such a writ. The Complaining Witness complained about ODC's handling of his disciplinary grievance. In particular, the Complaining Witness was disturbed that ODC allowed the Attorney to sue the Complaining Witness for complaining about [the Attorney] to ODC. The Complaining Witness noted, inter alia, his dissatisfaction about ODC notifying the Attorney about the Complaining Witness's grievance, ODC's responses or lack of responses to the Complaining Witness's many inquiries seeking information about the Attorney's responses to the Complaining Witness's complaints, the results of ODC's investigation (particularly the dismissal of the November, 1996, grievance), and ODC's refusal to award sanctions and restitution to the Complaining Witness. The Complaining Witness asserted he was entitled to an order of restitution for his substantial attorneys' fees incurred as a result of [the Attorney's] actions and asked that ODC be ordered to reopen this matter, and/or that the court order appropriate sanctions, including restitution, and set aside the Assistant Disciplinary Counsel's finding there was no clear and convincing evidence to support the Complaining Witness's November, 1996, grievance. In order to review these matters, we ordered that the Complaining Witness's letter be filed as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. We required the Disciplinary Board and ODC to file the record of the Complaining Witness's grievance and we ordered the Complaining Witness, as Petitioner, and the Disciplinary Board, ODC, and the Attorney, as Respondents, to brief the issues. Additional facts necessary to this decision are included below.