Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-14-0000413
24-FEB-2014
09:38 AM
SCPW-14-0000413
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
ANTHONY P. LOCRICCHIO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, ACTING CHIEF DISCIPLINARY
COUNSEL CHARLENE M. NORRIS, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the February 3, 2014 petition for
a writ of mandamus submitted by Petitioner attorney Anthony P.
Locricchio, the February 9, 2014 supplemental submission, and the
exhibits appended, this court concludes nothing in the petition
or the attached exhibits supports the conclusion that the Office
of Disciplinary Counsel has violated a duty owed this court, or
abused the discretion delegated to it by this court. See Breiner
v. Sunderland, 112 Haw. 60, 64-65, 143 P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006);
In re Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i
363, 368-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693-96 (1999); Akinaka v. Disciplinary
Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 51, 57, 979 P.2d
1077, 1083 (1999). It also appears there are alternate remedies
to the alleged improprieties complained of, available to the
Petitioner through action in the trial courts and Rule 8 of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i. “A writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition will not issue unless a petitioner
demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack
of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain
the requested action.” Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81
Hawai‘i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 24, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack