NO. 25697
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES
G. CHING, Respondent.
(ODC 01-291-7035,
ODC 02-029-7227,
ODC 03-283-7883 and ODC 03-311-7911)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration
of (1) the Disciplinary Board's May 10, 2006 report and
recommendation for the disbarment of Respondent James G. Ching
(Respondent Ching),
(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 the
State 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 Mildred Kihamahana, Scott
Mitsuo Maxwell
and Taischa Monette in litigation matters, Respondent Ching committed
the
following violations of the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct
(HRPC):
- four violations of HRPC Rule 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with
reasonable
diligence in representing a client);
- one violation of HRPC Rule 1.4(a) (requiring that a lawyer
must keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply
with
reasonable requests for information);
- one violation of HRPC Rule 1.4(b) (requiring that a lawyer
shall explain a
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make
informed
decisions regarding the representation);
- one violation of HRPC Rule 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer in
private practice to
maintain a trust account separate from business or personal accounts);
- one violation of HRPC Rule 1.15(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from
commingling or
misappropriating client funds);
- one violation of HRPC Rule 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to deposit
all client
funds and unearned retainer fees into a client trust account);
- one violation 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(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);
- one violation of HRCP Rule 1.15(h) (requiring a lawyer to
maintain financial
books and records in such a way so that the financial books and records
are
available at the lawyer's principal Hawai`i office where they are
available for
inspection by the ODC, and stored in such a was so that printed copies
can be
made on demand);
- one violation of HRPC Rule 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to refund
unearned fees
to a client upon termination of representation);
- four violations of HRPC Rule 3.2 (requiring a lawyer to make
reasonable efforts
to expedite litigation consistent with the legitimate interests of the
client);
- four violations of HRPC Rule 3.4(e) (prohibiting a lawyer from
knowingly
disobeying an obligations under the rules of a tribunal except for an
open
refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists);
- four 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);
- thirteen violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer
from violating the
rules of professional conduct); and
- four violations of HRPC Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from
failing to
cooperate during the course of an ethics investigation).
With respect to Respondent Ching's misappropriation of client funds, we
note that,
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). We find no mitigating circumstances. In addition, Respondent
Ching
has 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), and the May 2, 2003 supreme court
order suspending
Respondent Ching from the practice of law for one year and one day in
ODC 97-283-5477 and ODC 99-134-5964 (supreme court case number 25697).
Therefore, disbarment
is warranted.
It further appears
that, following the entry of the May 2, 2003 order suspending
Respondent Ching from the practice of law for one year and one day,
Respondent
Ching has not been reinstated, and, thus, delaying the effective date
of the order
of disbarment, as RSCH Rule 2.16(c) provides, is inappropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Respondent James G. Ching (attorney number 2211) is
disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawaii, effective
immediately.
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Respondent James G. Ching (attorney number 2211) shall
reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the Bar of Hawai`i
in the sum
of $1,500.00 for the payment that the Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection of the
Bar of Hawai`i made to Taischa Monette due to Respondent Ching's
misappropriation
of her funds.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, June 6, 2006.