Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Edmondson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 25969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. PAUL D. EDMONDSON, Respondent. (ODC 02-309-7507) ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Upon consideration of (1) Petitioner Office of Disciplinary Counsel s (Petitioner ODC) July 18, 2003 ex parte petition for issuance of reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Paul D. Edmondson (Respondent Edmondson) pursuant to Rule 2.15 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai#i (RSCH), (2) Petitioner ODC s supporting memoranda, affidavits, and exhibits, (3) Respondent Edmondson s September 5, 2003 response to our August 11, 2003 notice and order regarding reciprocal discipline, and (4) the record, it appears that on May 29, 2002, the Supreme Court of Washington suspended Respondent Edmondson from the practice of law in the State of Washington for twentyone (21) days, because Respondent Edmondson practiced law while he was previously suspended from the practice of law in violation of Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(d) of the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (WRPC), and Respondent Edmondson failed to adequately supervise a non-lawyer employee in violation of WRPC Rule 5.3, resulting in the non-lawyer employee s conversion of clients funds. It further appears that reciprocal discipline in the form of a suspension is warranted in Hawai#i pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), Respondent Edmondson is suspended from the practice of law in Hawai#i for twenty-one (21) days, effective thirty days after entry of this order, as provided by RSCH Rule 2.16(c). Respondent Edmondson is reminded that he may not resume the practice of law in Hawai#i except upon reinstatement by order of this court. See RSCH Rule 2.17(a) & (b). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 26, 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.
