Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Medeiros
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 22575 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner vs. THOMAS M. MEDEIROS, Respondent (ODC 99-107-5937, 99-111-5941, 99-199-6029) ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Acoba, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ibarra, in place of the Honorable Riki May Amano, assigned by reason of vacancy, who has retired from the Judiciary,) Upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board s Report and Recommendation for the Disbarment of Thomas M. Medeiros From the Practice of Law and Respondent Medeiros lack of objection thereto as exhibited by his failure to file an opening brief as permitted by our February 3, 2003 order, it appears that Respondent Medeiros has multiple violations of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(f)(3), 1.16(a)(1), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.4(e), 5.5(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). It further appears, in aggravation, that Respondent Medeiros has been previously informally admonished on three occasions, that the offenses here are multiple, and exhibit a pattern of similar misconduct, a dishonest and selfish motive, and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding. In further aggravation, Respondent Medeiros has substantial experience in the practice of law and refuses to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. It finally appears that Respondent Medeiros is presently suspended pursuant to RSCH 2.12A, and making discipline effective thirty (30) days after entry of this order, see RSCH 2.16(c), would be pointless. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DeMello, 61 Haw. 223, 225, 601 P.2d 1087, 1088 (1979). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Thomas M. Medeiros is disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, effective immediately. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 27, 2003. 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.
