NO. 24777
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
LOWELL D. CHATBURN, Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
(ODC 94-099-4190, 95-149-4608, 96-178-4978)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama,
Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.)
We have considered the "Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation
for the Disbarment of Lowell D. Chatburn from the Practice of Law." The
Disciplinary Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported
by the record. We adopt the Disciplinary Board's recommendation to disbar
Respondent Lowell D. Chatburn and order him to pay restitution to Dorvin
D. Leis in the amount of $128,592.59.
Respondent Chatburn's misconduct prior to January 1, 1994, violated
the Disciplinary Rules (DR) of the Hawaii Code of Professional Responsibility
(HCPR) as follows:
-
two violations of HCPR DR 1-102(A)(4)(prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);
-
two violations of HCPR DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting
on fitness to practice law);
-
one violation of HCPR DR 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of
employment entered into with a client for professional services);
-
two violations of HCPR DR 9-102(A) (prohibiting commingling and misappropriating
client funds);
-
two violations of HCPR DR 9-102(B)(1) (requiring lawyers to promptly notify
a client of the receipt of client funds);
-
two violations of HCPR DR 9-102(B)(3) (failure to maintain complete records
of funds of a client coming into lawyer's possession and to render appropriate
account to the client regarding those funds);
-
two violations of HCPR DR 9-102(B)(4) (requiring lawyers to promptly pay
to a client, as requested by the client, the funds in possession of the
lawyer which the client is entitled to receive); and
-
one violation of HCPR DR 9-102 Addendum A (requiring lawyers to maintain
a cash receipts journal, a disbursements journal, a subsidiary leger, bank
statements, and a record showing all property held in trust).
Chatburn's misconduct on or after January 1, 1994, violated multiple provisions
of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) as follows:
-
one violation of HRPC 1.5(c) (requiring a lawyer to provide a final statement
after the conclusion of a contingent fee matter);
-
one violation of HRPC 1.8 (prohibiting improper business transactions with
clients);
-
two violations of HRPC 1.15(a) (requiring lawyers to maintain separate
client trust accounts and business accounts);
-
two violations of HRPC 1.15(b) (requiring prompt notification and delivery
to client of receipt of funds);
-
three violations of HRPC 1.15(c) (prohibiting commingling and misappropriation
of client funds);
-
two violations of HRPC 1.15(f)(1) (requiring prompt notification to clients
of receipt of funds);
-
one violation of HRPC 1.15(f)(3) (requiring lawyers to maintain complete
records of client funds);
-
two violations of HRPC 1.15(f)(4) (requiring prompt delivery of client
funds);
-
one violation of HRPC 1.15(g)(2) (requiring lawyers to maintain records
relating to client funds);
-
two violations of HRPC 5.3 (requiring lawyers to supervise their non-lawyer
assistants);
-
one violation of HRPC 8.4(a) (prohibiting any violation of the HRPC through
the actions of another); and
-
three violations of HRPC 8.4(c) (prohibiting dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation).
Of these thirty-five rules violations, the most serious violations involved
Respondent Chatburn's commingling and conversion of clients' funds for
his own use in violation of HCPR DR 9-102(A) and HRPC 1.15(c). See Office
of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lau, 85 Hawai`i 212, 216, 941 P.2d 295,
299 (1997) ("[W]here misconduct is severe and extensive and includes misappropriation
of clients' funds, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish
sufficiently strong evidence of mitigation to warrant a penalty lesser
than disbarment." (Citation omitted)). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Lowell D. Chatburn is disbarred
from the practice of law in Hawai`i, effective thirty (30) days after entry
of this order, as provided by Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Hawai`i (RSCH).
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that, in addition to the requirements for
reinstatement set out in RSCH Rule 2.17, Respondent Lowell D. Chatburn
shall make restitution to Dorvin D. Leis in the amount of $128,592.59.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, May 30, 2002.