Court Opinion

ID: 2771530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-20 22:03:15.909323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:45.139534
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                      Supreme Court
                                                      SCAD-14-0001350
                                                      16-JAN-2015
                                                      11:28 AM
                          SCAD-14-0001350

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

                  OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

                            Petitioner,

                                vs.

                         JOSEPH C. LEHMAN,

                            Respondent.

                        ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                         (ODC 14-059-9202)

                   ORDER OF RECIPROCAL SUSPENSION

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

           Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel’s December 9, 2014 petition for issuance of a reciprocal

discipline notice to Respondent Joseph C. Lehman, 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 22, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline

issued by this court, and Respondent Lehman’s December 22, 2014

submission, we note that, on February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court

of Indiana suspended Respondent Lehman for a minimum of two

years, for violations of the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules

1.1 (for incompetent representation), 1.2(a) (for failing to

abide by a client’s decisions concerning objectives of a

representation), 1.6(a) (for revealing information relating to a

client without the client’s informed consent), 1.9(c)(2) (for

revealing information relating to the representation of a former

client not permitted or required by the Rules), 1.15(a) (for

commingling attorney and client funds and spending money out of

trust for personal uses) and 8.4(d) (for engaging in conduct

prejudicial to the administration of justice).   The Indiana

Supreme Court also concluded Lehman’s commingling of client and

attorney funds, and failure to maintain proper financial records,

also violated Rules 23(29)(a)(2), 23(29)(a)(3) and 23(29)(a)(4)

of the Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules.   Lehman’s conduct

set forth in the record, if committed in this jurisdiction, would

represent violations of Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct

Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.6(a), 1.9(c)(2), 1.15(a), 3.2,

and 3.4(e).   Respondent Lehman, in his response, argues denial of

due process and infirmity of proof sufficient to establish an

exception to reciprocal discipline under RSCH Rules 2.15(c)(1)

and (2).   A review of the record, however, demonstrates

Respondent Lehman was provided notice of the proceedings against

him, participated in the process, and was afforded an opportunity

to be heard both at the hearings and thereafter by written

submission.   The record also demonstrates Respondent Lehman

exceeded by more than two months the deadline imposed through

published court rule for him to request review by the Indiana

Supreme Court, and only filed said request after the court

entered its final judgment in the matter.   In short, a review of

                                 2

the record does not support Respondent Lehman’s contentions.

Respondent Lehman’s conduct, if committed in this jurisdiction,

would not warrant a substantially different discipline than that

imposed by the Supreme Court of Indiana.   Therefore, 

          IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Joseph C. Lehman

is suspended for two years from the practice of law in this

jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(2) and 2.15(c),

effective thirty days after the entry of this order.

          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Lehman shall, in

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

10 days after the effective date of his suspension, an affidavit

showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d). 

          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Lehman shall bear

any costs associated with these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant

to RSCH Rule 2.3(c), upon approval of a timely-submitted verified

bill of costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

          IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Lehman’s

reinstatement to practice in this jurisdiction is contingent upon

submission of proof to this court of his successful reinstatement

to practice in Indiana.

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 16, 2015.

                                     /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

                                     /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

                                     /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

                                     /s/ Richard W. Pollack

                                     /s/ Michael D. Wilson

                                3