Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Amen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 10842 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. RANDOLPH J. AMEN, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ (ODC 99-130-5960, 00-075-6421, 00-076-6422, 01-223-6967, 01-310-7054, 01-311-7055, 01-312-7056, 01-313-7057, 01-314-7058) (By: ORDER OF SUSPENSION Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel has petitioned for the immediate suspension of Respondent Randolph J. Amen from the practice of law, pursuant to Rule 2.20(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and to effectuate service by certified mail pursuant to RSCH 2.11(a). Upon consideration of the petition, the memorandum and affidavit in support of the petition, and the record, it appears that on October 17, 2001, this court appointed a trustee pursuant to RSCH 2.20, and that Respondent Amen cannot be found within the state. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH 2.20(e), that the Petition is granted and Respondent Randolph John Amen is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, effective immediately. This order is without prejudice to any disciplinary investigations or proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH 2.20(e), that Respondent Amen may not be reinstated until the trusteeship has been completed and all costs ordered and incurred, together with interest at the statutory rate, have been paid. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH 2.11(a), that service of this order and any other orders, petitions, motions, or other items shall be made by registered mail at the address shown for Respondent on his last RSCH 17(d) registration statement. This order is without prejudice to personal or mail service at any address that becomes known to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 16, 2001. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
