Opinion ID: 2636101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gould's Actions While Suspended

Text: First, Gould did not timely comply with RSCH Rule 2.16. Indeed, his RSCH Rule 2.16(d) affidavit, due by October 25, 1999, was not filed until May 1, 2008. Second, between February 1, 2005 and March 8, 2006, ODC received the following complaints against Gould:
According to the hearing committee's findings of fact (FOF) 12, Tina Bass and Barry Shapiro, tenants evicted from Gould's wife's Maui property, complained that Gould was using the designation J.D. (or Juris Doctor) after his name on his office door. In a letter dated February 21, 2005, Gould explained that he had two law degreesa Bachelor of Science in Law (or B.S.L.) and a Bachelor of Laws (or L.L.B.). He indicated he had contacted Northwestern University School of Law and learned that Northwestern did not convert their L.L.B.s to J.D.s and promised to change all signage . . . to Burton D. Gould B.S.L., L.L.B. In a letter to Gould, dated March 28, 2008, the ODC advised Gould that it had determined that Gould's improper use of the signage, `J.D.,' instead of `L.L.B.,' violated  HRPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating a rule of professional conduct), but that no discipline would be imposed because neither Bass and Shapiro nor the legal system were substantively harmed and because Gould stopped using the `J.D.' signage. (Emphasis added.)
On December 29, 2004, under the letterhead of Burton D. Gould, J.D., Gould wrote to Robert [James] Worley of Poly [Pali] Kai Realty. The letter indicated that Gould was acting as agent for Mr. Alan Bradbury and Ms. Geneen Summer[.] The letter complained of mold and fungus in a purchased property and said [t]hey would like to resolve this problem without the intervention of attorneys and protracted litigation. Worley wrote to ODC on January 17, 2005 with the concern that Mr. Gould, by the tenure [sic] and the J.D. portion of his letter is possibly acting as an attorney[.] During the investigation of the Worley matter, the ODC requested from attorney William McKeon, attorney for the property's homeowner's association, information regarding his dealings with Gould. In response, McKeon provided copies of various correspondence, one of which was a November 11, 2004 letter from Gould, as agent for Bradbury and Summer, to McKeon, attempting to clarify the Bradbury-Summer position with regard to the mold/fungus problem. Upon verifying that Gould was suspended, McKeon wrote to Bradbury and Summer, on November 19, 2004, requesting that any further correspondence come from Bradbury, the unit owner, not Gould. In response to the Worley complaint, Gould stated, in a letter dated February 7, 2005, that he had agreed to act as [Bradbury's and Summer's] agent and, with regard to the use of J.D., [indicated] that is one of my degrees. In a subsequent letter to ODC, dated June 11, 2007, Gouldresponding specifically to inquiries regarding his correspondence with McKeonstated that he was acting as an agent and not as an attorney and that he had stopped acting as Bradbury's agent when McKeon informed him of McKeon's concerns. As with the Bass/Shapiro complaint, ODC, on April 2, 2008, determined that Gould's use of the improper signage, `J.D.,' instead of `L.L.B.,' violated  HRPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating a rule of professional conduct), but that no discipline would be imposed because Worley, McKeon, and the legal system were not substantively harmed. The ODC's letter also recited that our office was instructed to issue you a letter of caution regarding your violations of HRPC 8.4(c) and HRPC 8.4(a).
Although Gould indicated that he stopped acting as an agent for Bradbury when McKeonin November 2004had expressed his concerns about dealing with Gould, he continued to act as agent for others. More specifically, a year laterin November 2005,attorney Paul Brooke asked ODC for clarification and instructions relative to interacting with Gould about Edward Schmitt's worker's compensation claim. Brooke indicated that Gould had sent a settlement demand with regard to the claim and attached a copy of the demand to his request. Gould also wrote to First Insurance Company as agent for Mr. Edward Schmitt. Brooke subsequently asked ODC to consider his letter a formal complaint. In response to the Brooke complaint, Gould wrote in a letter dated January 26, 2006 that: (1) he had not held himself out as an attorney authorized to practice law; (2) [t]he labor board allows agents without a law license to help injured workers; (3) [b]ut for . . . Brooke's rudeness, [he] would not have known . . . there was a `problem'; (4) he did not believe he had acted improperly; and (5) he believed he was being treated unfairly and singled out for selective punishment because of [his] earlier mistake in judgment[.] In a letter dated April 2, 2008, the ODC concluded Gould's letter to First Insurance Company violated HRPC 3.4(e) (knowingly disobey[ing] an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), HRPC 5.5(a) (practic[ing] law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession), and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating the rules of the profession) and imposed an informal admonition.
On March 8, 2006, Gould advised the DLIR that he represented Gwendolyn Johnson and sought a hearing to determine whether Johnson was entitled to medical care. The letter contained no academic degree designations. Via letter dated March 9, 2006, the DLIR director asked Disciplinary Counsel, Is a suspended attorney allowed to represent claimants? Johnson also applied for a hearing and noted her attorney, Burton Gould, will be present. In response to ODC's inquiry, Gould asserted that one could act as an agent and not do any act that constitutes the practice of law, but that he had decided not to act as an agent for anyone at the Department of Labor. In a letter dated March 16, 2006, Special Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Alvin Ito advised Gould it was improper for Gould to represent an individual in a workers' compensation hearing, or to perform any acts that constitute the practice of law. [3] In an undated letter from Gould to attorney Robert Chong (presumably, employer's attorney), Gould essentially indicated he was aiding Johnson, but not representing her, and expressed a willingness to convey a fair offer. Chong declined to communicate with Gould. By letter dated April 8, 2008, ODC informed Gould that his letter to the DLIR violated HRPC 3.4(e) (knowingly disobey[ing] an obligation under rules of a tribunal), HRPC 5.5(a) (practic[ing] law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession), and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating the rules of professional conduct) and imposed an informal admonition.