Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAD-16-0000843
17-FEB-2017
01:10 PM
SCAD-16-0000843
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
ROBERT SIBILIA,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 16-0-143)
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel’s December 1, 2016 petition for issuance of a reciprocal
discipline notice to Respondent Robert Sibilia, pursuant to Rule
2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i
(RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto,
the December 20, 2016 Notice and Order issued by this court, and
the record, it appears that, on June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court
of California suspended Respondent Sibilia for one year, with all
but the initial 90 days stayed, required him within one year to
successfully complete the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination, and to bear the costs of the proceedings, for
misappropriating $12,933.69 from three clients in two matters due
to “gross neglect.” Such conduct, if committed in this
jurisdiction, would violate Rule 1.15(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of
Professional Conduct (1994) and, weighed in light of the
aggravating and mitigating factors cited by the court, would
justify suspension (see, e.g., ODC v. Avinante, SCAD-14-775 (June
12, 2014); ODC v. Green, No. 21569 (July 30, 1998) ; ODC v.
Ikehara, No. 20652 (October 14, 1997)). It further appears that
this court’s December 20, 2016 Notice and Order was served on
Respondent Sibilia by post on January 4, 2017 to the address
registered with the Hawai#i State Bar Association so, by the
terms of the December 20, 2016 order, RSCH Rule 2.15(b), and
Rules 26(a) and 26(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure, Respondent Sibilia had until February 6, 2017 to
respond to the Notice with any reasons as to why reciprocal
discipline should not be imposed upon him. Respondent Sibilia
has not filed a response, and a review of the record and
precedent demonstrates, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and (d),
that reciprocal discipline is authorized and justified.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Robert Sibilia is
suspended for 90 days from the practice of law in this
jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(2) and 2.15(c),
2
effective thirty days after the entry of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Sibilia shall, in
accordance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d), file with this court, within
10 days after the effective date of his suspension, an affidavit
showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Sibilia shall
bear the costs of these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant to RSCH
Rule 2.3(c), upon the timely submission of a verified bill of
costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Sibilia shall not
resume the practice of law in this jurisdiction until reinstated
by order of this court, as set forth in RSCH Rules 2.17(a) and
2.17(b)(2). Any application for reinstatement shall include
proof of reinstatement to, and good standing with, the California
State Bar.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 17, 2017.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
3