Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hayashi

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-12-0001028 21-MAY-2013 02:51 PM SCAD-12-0001028 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. DERWIN HAYASHI, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 09-075-8798) ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Pollack, JJ. and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, in place of McKenna, J., recused) Upon consideration of the April 29, 2013 and the May 8, 2013 declarations submitted by Respondent Derwin Hayashi, made under penalty of perjury, and the record, it appears Respondent Hayashi has complied with the relevant requirements of his twoweek period of suspension from the practice of law and with the requirements of Rules 2.16 and 2.17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH). It further appears his May 8, 2013 declaration fulfills the requirements of the affidavit which must be filed with this court prior to being reinstated to the practice of law and, further, that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was provided electronic notice of the filing of the declaration, as required by RSCH Rule 2.17(b). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.17(b), Respondent Hayashi is reinstated to the practice of law in the jurisdiction of the State of Hawai#i, effective upon entry of this order. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 21, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Craig H. Nakamura 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.