Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX
22-FEB-2021
01:39 PM
Dkt. 103 ORD
SCAD-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
STEPHEN CARL WOODRUFF, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(ODC 13-003-9073)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,
and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard,
assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of the December 7, 2020 motion,
filed by Respondent Stephen Woodruff, seeking reconsideration of
this court’s November 27, 2020 order, denying his November 12,
2020 motion to vacate his disbarment, the February 15, 2021
submission by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed in
response to this court’s December 15, 2020 order, the October 13,
2017 report, authored by an Appellate Commissioner from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding
the disciplinary proceedings in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) which resulted in Respondent Woodruff’s
disbarment in that jurisdiction, and which, in turn, formed the
basis for Respondent Woodruff’s reciprocal disbarment in this
jurisdiction, and upon a review of the entire record in this
matter, this court finds that the Appellate Commissioner’s
report, issued after this court’s October 11, 2016 disbarment
order, constitutes newly discovered evidence which could not have
been discovered prior to the disposition of this matter in 2016.
We further find that the report provides clear and convincing
information which demonstrates good cause exists, pursuant to
Rule 2 of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP), for
this court to suspend the provisions of HRAP Rule 40(a) and to
reconsider the merits of Respondent Woodruff’s previous
disbarment. Upon such consideration, we conclude that the report
also demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
CNMI disciplinary proceedings contained infirmities, both of
proof, and of due process, that, in turn, support the conclusion
that this court cannot accord a presumption of correctness to the
CNMI proceedings and support the conclusion that a departure from
substantially similar discipline in this jurisdiction is
therefore warranted. See Rules 2.15(c)(1), 2.15(c)(2), and
2.15(c)(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawai#i (RSCH). We also conclude that a review of the record
nevertheless demonstrates that Respondent Woodruff did commit
misconduct in both the CNMI and in his federal court practice,
characterized by incompetence, delay, and a failure to reasonably
communicate with clients which, if committed in this
jurisdiction, would constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3,
1.4(a), and 3.2 of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct
2
(1994) at the time they were committed, and which are sufficient
to warrant a period of suspension. See ODC v. Martinez, SCAD-16-
523 (September 29, 2016); ODC v. Lehman, SCAD-14-1350
(January 26, 2015); ODC v. Mutjabaa, SCAD-14-799 (June 24, 2014).
Therefore, pursuant to this court’s authority under HRS § 602-
5(a)(6) (2016),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the December 7, 2020 motion
for reconsideration is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to HRAP Rule 2,
the original deadline for reconsideration of the October 11, 2016
order of disbarment, set by HRAP Rule 40(a), is suspended, and
the discipline imposed by the October 11, 2016 order upon
Respondent Woodruff is modified, to a one-year suspension,
effective nunc pro tunc to November 10, 2016, the date his
disbarment became effective. Respondent Woodruff is therefore
presently eligible to apply for reinstatement to practice in this
jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.17(b)(2).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 22, 2021.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
3