Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-20-0000403 03-AUG-2021 07:51 AM Dkt. 124 ORD SCAD-20-0000403 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, vs. EARLE A. PARTINGTON (HI Bar No. 1568), Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 19-0297) ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Ginoza, in place of Wilson, J., recused, and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Respondent Earle A. Partington’s July 30, 2021 declaration and the record in this matter, it appears that Respondent Partington’s declaration does not comply with Rule 2.17(b)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai i (RSCH) (to wit, that an attorney suspended for one year of less aver, for the period of suspension, that the attorney “has complied with the suspension order . . . .”). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Partington’s reinstatement is denied, without prejudice to the filing of an affidavit, or a declaration as authorized by Rule 52 of the Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure, complying with RSCH Rule 2.17(b)(2). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 3, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Katherine G. Leonard 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.