Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pappas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 25388 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. RHEA D. PAPPAS, Respondent. (ODC 00-129-6475, ODC 00-209-6555, ODC 01-196-6940, ODC 02-111-7309, ODC 02-112-7310, ODC 02-214-7412, ODC 02-256-7454, ODC 02-257-7455, ODC 02-258-7456) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING REQUEST OF RHEA D. PAPPAS TO RESIGN FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson and Nakayama, JJ., Circuit Judge Raffetto, in place of Acoba, J., and Circuit Judge Town, by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel s (Petitioner ODC) Ex Parte Motion for Order Granting Request of Rhea D. Pappas to Resign from the Practice of Law in Lieu of Discipline, filed July 22, 2003, the supporting affidavits, declarations, exhibits, and the record, it appears that Respondent Rhea D. Pappas s (Respondent Pappas) supporting affidavit meets the requirements of Rule 2.14(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i (RSCH). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner ODC s motion is granted and Respondent Pappas s request to resign in lieu of discipline is granted, effective thirty (30) days after entry of this order. See RSCH Rule 2.14(d); RSCH Rule 2.16(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i shall remove Respondent Pappas s name from the role of attorneys licensed to practice law in this jurisdiction and (2) within thirty (30) days after entry of this order, Respondent Pappas shall submit to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i the original certificate evidencing her license to practice law in this jurisdiction. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that (1) Respondent Pappas shall comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 and (2) the Disciplinary Board shall provide notice to the public and judges, as RSCH Rule 2.16 requires. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 11, 2003. Michael T. Lee for petitioner on the motion 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.