Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbard ( 2021 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX
15-JAN-2021
01:02 PM
Dkt. 8 OSUS
SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
SCOTTLYNN J. HUBBARD, IV, (HI Bar #10148),
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC Case No. 20-0093)
ORDER OF RECIPROCAL SUSPENSION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,
and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Ginoza,
assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of the petition for reciprocal
action upon Respondent Scottlynn J. Hubbard IV, filed on
November 25, 2020 by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC)
pursuant to Rule 2.15 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and the memorandum, declaration, and
exhibits appended thereto, and the lack of a response from
Respondent Hubbard to this court’s December 10, 2020 notice and
order, we find that, on October 21, 2020, the California Supreme
Court suspended Respondent Hubbard from the practice of law for
two years and imposed other conditions upon him, but stayed the
two year suspension of his license subject to the condition of a
minimum one year suspension and until such time as Respondent
Hubbard could demonstrate a fitness to return to practice by
standards similar to RSCH Rule 2.17(b)(4), for misconduct in
California that, if committed in this jurisdiction, would
constitute multiple violations of Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(e),
8.2(a), and 8.4(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct
(2014) and would warrant a substantial period of suspension. See
ODC v. Terada, SCAD-19-416 (June 29, 2020); ODC v. Wooten, SCAD-
12-405 (February 15, 2013); ODC v. Au, 113 P.3d 203 (Hawai#i
2005); ODC v. Wong, No. 15977 (July 15, 1992). In sum, a review
of the record and precedent demonstrates that reciprocal
discipline is authorized and justified. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Hubbard is
suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for one
year, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(2), 2.15(c), and 2.15(d). In
light of Respondent Hubbard’s inactive status in this
jurisdiction, the suspension is effective upon entry of this
order, though this does not relieve Respondent Hubbard of the
duty to file an affidavit of compliance with his suspension,
imposed by RSCH Rule 2.16(d), within 30 days of the entry date of
this order.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hubbard shall
bear the costs of these reciprocal disciplinary proceedings upon
the approval by this court of a timely submitted verified bill of
costs from the ODC, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Hubbard, in
addition to any obligations imposed by RSCH Rules 2.16 and 2.17,
shall, as a precondition for reinstatement in this jurisdiction,
submit proof of reinstatement and good standing in California.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 15, 2021.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
3