Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cookson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-19-0000548 29-APR-2020 07:53 AM SCAD-19-0000548 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. PATRICIA LYNN COOKSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 16-O-073) ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai i Supreme Court, the evidence in the record, and the briefs, we find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Cookson’s client violated a valid court order governing visitation rights for his child due to the planning and instruction of Respondent Cookson and that Respondent Cookson did not thereafter take remedial action or otherwise recognize that she had no authority to advise her client in a course of action that resulted in her client retaining the child in violation of the court order. We conclude, based on those findings, that Respondent Cookson violated Rules 1.1 and 3.4(e) of the Hawai i Rules of Professional Conduct (2014). We find that her misconduct injured her client, his child, and Mother, as well as the reputation of the legal profession. We find, in aggravation, that Respondent Cookson has substantial experience in the practice of law and that Respondent’s conduct affected a child. We find, in mitigation, that Respondent Cookson has a clean disciplinary record, did not have a dishonest or selfish motive, displayed a cooperative attitude toward disciplinary authorities, and has a good character and reputation in the community. We find that the role Respondent Cookson’s misconduct played in knowingly causing her client to violate a valid court order warrants a substantial period of suspension. However, we take under consideration the mitigating factors listed above. Finally, we note Respondent Cookson, in the January 23, 2020 reply brief, renewed her motion for oral argument. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for oral argument is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Cookson, pursuant to Rule 2.3(a)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai i (RSCH), is suspended from the practice of 2 law for 90 days, effective 30 days from the entry date of this order. Respondent Cookson is reminded that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.17(a), she may not practice law until reinstated by an order of this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(d), within 10 days after the effective date of her suspension, Respondent Cookson shall submit to this court proof of compliance with the conditions of her suspension. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Cookson shall, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(c), bear the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, upon approval by this court of a timely submitted verified bill of costs from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, April 29, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 3
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.
