Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAD-13-0000451
17-JUL-2013
07:55 AM
SCAD-13-0000451
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
DIANA R. DANMEYER, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 11-060-8984)
ORDER IMPOSING A PUBLIC CENSURE
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the April 26, 2013 Report and
Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
the State of Hawai'i, and the record, it appears Respondent
Diana R. Danmeyer and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC)
have voluntarily stipulated to facts, conclusions of law, and
recommended discipline in ODC Case No. 11-060-8984, which the
Disciplinary Board has endorsed and submitted to this court.
This court is not bound by the stipulations of the parties or the
recommendation of the Board but reviews the matter de novo and
may impose discipline based upon the factual admissions set forth
in parties’ stipulations. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.
Au, 107 Hawai'i 327, 336, 113 P.3d 203, 212 (2005); Rule 2.7(e)
of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH).
Based upon a review of the stipulated facts, this court
concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent
Danmeyer, by failing to perform basic legal research and failing
to inquire with the relevant government authorities regarding the
veracity of the “redemption theory” of finance, failed to
demonstrate the requisite legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness,
and preparation reasonably necessary to fulfill her professional
obligations to the trial court, in violation of Rule 1.1 of the
Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC), with every oral and
written assertion of the discredited “redemption theory” of
finance submitted to the court a separation violation of HRPC
Rule 1.1, and further that Respondent Danmeyer, by asserting the
veracity of the “redemption theory” of finance, without having
performed the requisite research or preparation to determine its
veracity, asserted arguments to the trial court that were
baseless and frivolous, in violation of HRPC Rule 3.1, every oral
and written submission in support of the veracity of “redemption
theory,” and its purported ability to lawfully discharge debt, a
separation violation of HRPC Rule 3.1. Such conduct warrants a
period of suspension, in the absence of mitigating factors. See,
e.g., ODC v. Ng, SCAD-12-0000414 (March 1, 2013); ODC v. Shea,
SCAD-11-0000777 (May 1, 2012). The court further concludes, in
aggravation, Danmeyer’s conduct evinced a pattern of misconduct
and represents multiple violations of the HRPC, but, in
mitigation, notes Danmeyer’s full and free disclosure to the
disciplinary authorities, her cooperative attitude, the sincere
expressions of remorse Danmeyer has made in regards to the
2
matter, and the absence of any prior disciplinary record.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Diana R. Danmeyer
is publicly censured, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(a)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule
2.3(d), Respondent Danmeyer shall complete, within 180 days from
the date of entry of this order, at her own expense, a course on
effective legal research offered by the Practicing Attorneys
Liability Management Society or an equivalent, accredited course
and shall submit proof of completion to this court within 190
days from the date of entry of this order or good cause for an
extension. Failure to timely complete the required course or to
timely submit proof of completion may result in further
sanctions, including a period of suspension.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule
2.3(c), Respondent Danmeyer shall bear the costs of these
proceedings, upon the timely submission of a verified bill of
costs by ODC.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 17, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
3