Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Van Pernis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 25141 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner vs. MARK VAN PERNIS, Respondent (ODC 98-021-5512) (By: ORDER GRANTING REINSTATEMENT Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Upon consideration of (1) our July 11, 2003 order suspending Respondent Mark Van Pernis (Respondent Van Pernis) from the practice of law in the State of Hawai#i for a period of three months, (2) our August 22, 2003 order awarding costs in the amount of $1,871.21 to Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Petitioner ODC), (3) Respondent Van Pernis s untimely November 10, 2003 affidavit of compliance pursuant to Rule 2.16(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i (RSCH), (4) Petitioner ODC s November 12, 2003 notice of Respondent Van Pernis s satisfaction of the August 22, 2003 order awarding costs, (5) Petitioner ODC s November 14, 2003 response to Respondent Van Pernis s RSCH Rule 2.16(d) affidavit of compliance, (6) Respondent Van Pernis s November 18, 2003 affidavit, (7) attorney Earle A. Parrington s November 26, 2003 letter, which we deem to be a request on behalf of Respondent Van Pernis for reinstatement, and (8) the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Van Pernis s request for reinstatement is granted. Respondent Van Pernis is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Hawai#i and may resume the practice of law upon his payment of all required registration fees. See RSCH Rule 17. This order is effective upon entry. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 16, 2003. Earle A. Partington for respondent on the request. 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.
