Full text
Jeffries v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 02-JAN-2025 12:39 PM Dkt. 27 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________
DONALD JEFFRIES, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s letter filed on July 8, 2024, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, and the record, it is within the discretion of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to investigate and dismiss complaints brought before it. See Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi (RSCH) Rule 2.6(b)(2) (2022); In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaiʻi Sup. Ct., 91 Hawaiʻi 363, 984 P.2d 688 (1999). This record does not reflect an abuse of that discretion. See Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawaiʻi at 371, 984 P.2d at 696.
It is ordered that the petition is denied.
We note that dockets 1, 2, and 3 have been sealed because they contain ODC letters that are confidential pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.22. See Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawaiʻi at 363 n.1, 984 P.2d at 688 n.1. The appellate clerk shall refile dockets 1, 2, and 3 without the confidential ODC letters and with the names of the respondent attorneys in the disciplinary proceeding redacted.
The appellate clerk shall also seal dockets 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18 because they contain the names of the respondent attorneys in the disciplinary proceeding. The appellate clerk shall refile dockets 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18 in new docket numbers that redact the names of the respondent attorneys.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2, 2025.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
/s/ Vladimir P. Devens