NO. 25005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
JOHNNY P. RAGASA, Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
(ODC 97-176-5370, 99-201-6031, 00-025-6371,
00-065-6411, 99-173-6003, 01-068-6812, 01-083-6872)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, JJ., and
Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Burns,
in place of Acoba, J., recused)
We have considered the Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation
for the Suspension of Respondent Johnny P. Ragasa from the Practice of
Law for a Period of Five Years. The Disciplinary Board's findings of fact
and conclusions of law are supported by the record. The Disciplinary Board's
recommended five-year suspension is not consistent with our past practice
and would not protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal
profession and the dignity of the courts. See Office
of Disciplinary Counsel v. Breiner, 89 Hawai`i 167, 173, 969 P.2d
1285, 1291 (1999). We impose disbarment.
In representing clients, Respondent Ragasa committed at least one hundred
and eighty-six violations of the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct
(HRPC) including:
-
three violations of HRPC 1.1 (requiring lawyers to provide competent representation);
-
four violations of HRPC 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable
diligence);
-
five violations of HRPC 1.4(a)(requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably
informed);
-
one violation of HRPC 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to
the client to permit the client to make informed decisions);
-
two violations of HRPC 1.5(c) (requiring that contingent fee agreements
be in writing);
-
three violations of HRPC 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a client
trust account);
-
nine violations of HRPC 1.15(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from commingling
or misappropriating client funds, an requiring that funds belonging in
part to a client and in part to a lawyer must be deposited into a trust
account);
-
three violations of HRPC 1.15(d) (requiring that all funds entrusted to
a lawyer must be deposited intact into a trust account);
-
one violation of HRPC 1.15(e)(allowing only a licensed attorney to be an
authorized signatory on an attorney trust account);
-
sixteen violations of HRPC 1.15(f)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain complete
records of all funds coming into the lawyer's possession);
-
seventeen violations of HRPC 1.15(g) (requiring a lawyer to maintain financial
records for at least six years after employment);
-
fifteen violations of HRPC 1.15(h) (requiring a lawyer to maintain bookkeeping
records that are available for inspection at the lawyer's principal office);
-
two violations of HRPC 1.16(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from representing
a client where the representation will result in a violation of the HRPC
or other law);
-
one violation of HRPC 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to take reasonable steps
to protect a client's interest upon termination of representation);
-
three violations of HRPC 3.2 (requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts
to expedite litigation);
-
two violations of HRPC 3.4(e)(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal);
-
twelve violations of HRPC 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing
law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates regulations in that jurisdiction);
-
seven violations of HRPC 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing
to respond to a lawful demand by the ODC);
-
sixty-two violations of HRPC 8.4(a) (prohibiting lawyers from violating
the HRPC);
-
sixteen violations of HRPC 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and
-
two violations of HRPC 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to cooperate
during an ethics investigation).
Of these numerous HRPC violations, the most serious violations were Respondent
Ragasa's conversion of clients' funds for his own use in violation of HRPC
1.15(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from misappropriating client funds). Absent
strong mitigating circumstances, "misappropriating the funds of his clients
violates the most basic rule of professional responsibility and requires
the severest disciplinary sanction." Office
of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lau, 85 Hawai`i 212, 215, 941 P.2d 295,
298 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The mitigating
factors in this case are not strong and Respondent Ragasa's violations
are severe. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Johnny P. Ragasa 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 Hawaii (RSCH).
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that, as additional conditions of reinstatement,
Respondent Ragasa must (1) pay restitution to (a) Macario D. Deguzman and
Socorro Deguzman in the amount of $1,000.00, (b) Lionel Edward Edwards
and Cecilia Reyes Edwards in the amount of $1,000.00, (c) Petra Mullins
in the amount of $545.00, (d) Claralyn Guirnalda in the amount of $1,000.00,
or (e) reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection if any of these
amounts are paid by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, and (2) reimburse
Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board for
all costs subsequently ordered by this Court in accordance with RSCH Rule
2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, June 3, 2002.