De Gracia v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel ( 2014 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-14-0001375
30-DEC-2014
10:15 AM
SCPW-14-0001375
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CLAUDETTE DE GRACIA,
Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL and CRAIG FURUSHO,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the record, we conclude the
decision of Respondent Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to
decline to further investigate Petitioner’s allegations against
Respondent Furusho is within the discretion of ODC and nothing in
the record indicates an abuse of that discretion warranting a
writ of mandamus. See Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Hawai#i 60, 64-
65, 143 P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006); In re Disciplinary Board of
the Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693
(1999). We further conclude with regard to Respondent Furusho
that, while this court has jurisdiction over him pursuant to its
powers to manage and regulate the bar, this court has delegated
powers to ODC and the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
the State of Hawai#i to investigate alleged misconduct, and
nothing in the record indicates an abuse of that discretion. See
In re Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai#i at 368, 984 P.2d at 693.
Finally, we note Petitioner has alternate remedies available to
her through civil litigation to address her fee dispute with
Respondent Furusho, further rendering a writ of mandamus
inappropriate. See id. (citing Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i
109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996)). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied as to
both Respondent ODC and Respondent Furusho.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 30, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2