NO. 25697
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES G. CHING, Respondent.
ODC 97-283-5477, 99-134-5964
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson and Nakayama, JJ.,Circuit
Judge Blondin, in place of Acoba, J., who is unavailable,
and Circuit Judge Crandall, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of (1) the Disciplinary Board's report and recommendation
for the suspension of Respondent James G. Ching (Respondent Ching) from
the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, (2) Respondent
Ching's lack of objection as exhibited by his failure to request briefing
as permitted by Rule 2.7(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai`i
(RSCH), and (3) the record, we conclude that Petitioner Office of Disciplinary
Counsel (Petitioner ODC) proved by clear and convincing evidence that,
while Respondent Ching represented Anthony T. Carvalho and Ronald Ewe,
Respondent Ching committed the following violations of the Hawai`i Rules
of Professional Conduct (HRPC):
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable
diligence);
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 1.4(a) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with
requests for information);
-
five violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer in private
practice to maintain a trust account separate from business or personal
accounts);
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(b) (requiring a lawyer in private practice
to label each trust account, as well as deposit slips and checks drawn
thereon, as "client trust account");
-
three violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from commingling
or misappropriating client funds);
-
three violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit unearned
or disputed client funds into a client trust account);
-
three violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to deposit all
client funds and unearned retainer fees into a client trust account);
-
five violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain
complete records of all client funds for at least six years after completion
of the employment to which they relate);
-
one violation of HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver
to the client the funds in the possession of the lawyer that the client
is entitled to receive);
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 1.15(g) (requiring a lawyer to maintain several
specifically enumerated types of financial records for at least six years
after completion of the employment to which they relate);
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to refund unearned
fees to a client upon termination of representation);
-
one violation of HRPC Rule 3.2 (requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts
to expedite litigation);
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly
failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary
authority);
-
eighteen violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating
the rules of professional conduct);
-
six violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging
in dishonesty fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and
-
two violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to
cooperate during the course of an ethics investigation).
In addition, Respondent Ching demonstrated a disturbing pattern of recidivism
in his professional misconduct, as evidenced by the five previous letters
of informal admonition that Petitioner ODC issued to Respondent Ching in
ODC 3677 (October 12, 1993), ODC 3883 (December 1, 1993), ODC 4189 (September
13, 1994), ODC 4784 (January 26, 1998), and ODC 4791 (March 28, 1996).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent James G. Ching is suspended from
the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a period of one (1) year and
one (1) day, effective thirty (30) days after entry of this order, as provided
by RSCH Rule 2.16(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before Respondent Ching may apply for reinstatement,
he must, in addition to all other standards for reinstatement in RSCH Rule
2.17, successfully complete at his own expense (1) the Practicing Attorneys
Liability Management Society's practice management/law office audit program
and (2) the supreme court's RSCH Rule 1.14 mandatory professionalism course.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, May 2, 2003.