NO.
26374
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
OFFICE
OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
ROBERT
A. SMITH, Respondent.
(ODC 96-391-5191)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon
consideration of (1) the Disciplinary Board's February 4, 2004 report
and
recommendation for the disbarment of Respondent Robert A. Smith
(Respondent Smith)
from the practice of law, (2) Respondent Smith's April 8, 2004
opening brief,
(3) Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel's (Petitioner ODC)
May 18, 2004
answering brief, (4) Respondent Smith's May 27, 2004 reply brief,
and (5) the
record, we conclude that Petitioner ODC proved the violations of the
Hawai`i Rules
of Professional Conduct (HRPC), as set out below, by clear and
convincing
evidence.
1.
While Respondent Smith represented a client in
estate planning matters,
Respondent Smith had a conflict of interest between his obligations to
the client
and his professional and personal relationship with Paz Abastillas
(Ms. Abastillas) in violation of
- HRPC Rule 1.7(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from representing a
client if the
representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's
responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the
lawyer's own
interests); and
- HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or
attempting to violate
the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct or doing so through the acts
of
another).
2.
Despite Respondent Smith's conflict of interest,
Respondent Smith failed to
withdraw from his representation of the client in the estate planning
matters in
violation of
- HRPC Rule 1.16(a)(1) (requiring that a lawyer shall not
represent a client or
shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the
representation will
result in a violation of the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct); and
- HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or
attempting to violate
the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct or doing so through the acts
of
another).
3.
Respondent Smith cashed the client's $5,000.00
retainer before Respondent
Smith earned it, and Respondent Smith failed to deposit the retainer
into a client
trust account, in violation of
- HRPC Rule 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a
client trust account,
separate from any business and personal account, into which all funds
entrusted
to the lawyer's care shall be deposited);
- HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit funds into
a client trust
account when the funds belong in part to a client and in part presently
or
potentially to the lawyer);
- HRPC Rule 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to deposit all funds
entrusted to the
lawyer into a client trust account); and
- HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or
attempting to violate
the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct or doing so through the acts
of
another).
4.
Respondent Smith failed to maintain complete
financial records in violation of
- HRPC Rule 1.15(f)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain
complete records of all
funds, securities, and other properties of a client for at least six
years after
completion of the employment to which they relate);
- HRPC Rule 1.15(g)(2) (requiring that a lawyer maintain a
subsidiary ledger for
each client for at least six years after completion of the employment
to which
it relates); and
- HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or
attempting to violate
the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct or doing so through the acts
of
another).
5.
Respondent Smith charged the client legal fees that
were unreasonably high in
violation of
- HRPC Rule 1.5(a) (requiring that a lawyer's fee shall be
reasonable); and
- HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or
attempting to violate
the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct or doing so through the acts
of
another).
6.
In addition to the above rule violations, the record
indicates the following
eight aggravating factors with respect to Respondent Smith's misconduct:
- Respondent Smith has committed prior disciplinary offences, as
shown by
Petitioner ODC's January 25, 1999 informal admonition in ODC 4529;
- Respondent Smith had a dishonest motive while he was representing
the client;
- Respondent Smith displayed a pattern of misconduct extending over
a period of
time;
- Respondent Smith violated several provisions of the Hawai`i Rules
of Professional
Conduct;
- Respondent Smith refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of
his conflict of
interest in representing the client and his charging the client
unreasonable
legal fees;
- the victim of Respondent Smith's misconduct, the client, was an
elderly,
vulnerable woman who was in mental decline and subject to undue
influence;
- although inexperienced in estate planning, Respondent Smith had
substantial
experience in the practice of law; and
- Respondent Smith is indifferent to making restitution to the
client.
In the interest of
protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the
legal profession, we adopt the Disciplinary Board's recommendation to
disbar
Respondent Smith. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Respondent Robert A. Smith (attorney number 1561) 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 Smith shall
reimburse
Petitioner ODC and the Disciplinary Board for all costs ordered by this
Court in
accordance with RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, August 30, 2004.