Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Locricchio ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                       Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCAD-16-0000218
    18-OCT-2016
    10:30 AM
    SCAD-16-0000218
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
    OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    ANTHONY P. LOCRICCHIO,
    Respondent.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (ODC CASE NOS. 13-066-9136 and 14-040-9183)
    ORDER OF DISBARMENT
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
    Upon a thorough de novo review of the March 23, 2016
    report filed by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
    the State of Hawai'i, the record, and the briefs and exhibits
    appended thereto, submitted by Respondent Locricchio and the
    Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), we find and conclude the
    following based upon clear and convincing evidence contained in
    the record.
    The Hearing Officer in this matter made more than
    reasonable accommodations for Respondent Locricchio regarding the
    disciplinary hearing, and Respondent Locricchio had adequate
    notice of the date and time of the hearing.   The Hearing Officer
    was justified in convening the hearing, declaring Locricchio in
    default, and entering evidence into the record.
    In ODC Case No. 13-066-9136, we further conclude that
    when, on June 4, 2010 and June 24, 2010, Respondent Locricchio
    wrote to his client and stated in pertinent part he was
    transferring the funds in question to a Special Client Trust
    Account on the advice of ODC, and when he wrote to opposing
    counsel on August 26, 2010 and made similar statements, he
    misrepresented the truth, in violation of Rules 4.1(a) and 8.4(c)
    of the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994).    We
    conclude Respondent Locricchio repeatedly violated the United
    States Bankruptcy Court’s July 13, 2010 and November 2, 2010
    orders, and misappropriated funds, when he made payments from the
    Special Client Trust Account by executing checks in 2010 (dated
    July 24, August 25, November 3, November 11, December 2,
    December 12, December 15, and December 22), in 2011 (dated
    January 24, January 27, February 28, March 1, March 15, March 29,
    May 11, May 12, June 22, June 29, July 5, July 6, August 22,
    August 25, September 4, September 8, September 12, September 16,
    October 11, October 24, October 26, October 30, November 2,
    November 9, November 10, November 21, and December 21), and in
    2012 (dated January 3, February 7, March 15, May 23, May 27,
    2
    July 12, August 13 and August 15), each check constituting a
    violation of HRPC Rules 1.15(c), 1.15(f)(4), 3.4(e) and 8.4(c).
    When, on October 18, 2010, Respondent Locricchio did not appear
    at the hearing on the opposing party’s motion for an order to
    show cause, Respondent Locricchio had not sought, or obtained,
    leave to withdraw as counsel, as required under by the rules of
    the Bankruptcy Court and, by failing to appear or to properly
    withdraw, violated HRPC Rules 1.16(d) and 3.4(e).   When, on
    December 2, 2010, Respondent Locricchio failed to transfer the
    funds in the Special Client Trust Account to the United States
    District Court Registry, he violated 
    28 U.S.C. § 1335
    , thereby
    violating HRPC Rule 3.4(e).   Respondent Locricchio, by failing to
    timely assume the leases or to obtain an extension for doing so,
    violated HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3.    We further conclude, by clear
    and convincing evidence, that Respondent Locricchio’s cash
    withdrawals from the Special Client Trust Account on June 29,
    July 5, and July 6, 2011, and his issuance of Special Client
    Trust Account checks made payable to his wife, on July 24, 2010,
    May 12, 2011, September 8, 2011, September 16, 2011, December 2,
    2011, and May 23, 2012, each represent a separate violation of
    HRPC Rule 1.15(e).   When Respondent Locricchio stated, on
    December 2, 2010 in his interpleader complaint filed with the
    United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, that he
    was transferring the Slemons Hawai'i funds from the DIP client
    3
    trust account to the Special Client Trust Account on the advice
    of ODC, he made a material misrepresentation of fact to the court
    in violation of HRPC Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c).   When, in
    Respondent Locricchio’s September 12, 2012 motion in the
    interpleader action, he stated he had contacted ODC for advice
    with regards to the funds, he again made material
    misrepresentations of fact, again violating HRPC Rules 3.3(a)(1)
    and 8.4(c).   By making his wife, who was not an attorney, a
    signatory to the Special Client Trust Account (evidenced by her
    execution of the November 22, 2009 check for $80,300.00 and the
    October 24, 2011 check for $455.00),   Respondent Locricchio
    violated HRPC Rule 1.15(e).   By depositing third-party funds into
    the Special Client Trust Account, on July 6, 2011, Respondent
    Locricchio violated HRPC Rule 1.15(c).
    In ODC Case No. 14-040-9183, Respondent Locricchio’s
    June 22, 2010 verified complaint, and the ten subsequent motions
    for temporary restraining orders, all found by the United States
    District Court to be frivolous filings, each represent a separate
    violation of HRPC Rule 3.1.   Respondent Locricchio’s October 29,
    2010 amended complaint violated the June 25, 2010 order of the
    United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i and Rule
    8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby violating
    HRPC Rule 3.4(e).
    In aggravation, we find Respondent Locricchio committed
    4
    multiple offenses, engaged in bad faith obstruction of the
    disciplinary proceedings by repeatedly seeking to delay the
    proceedings, filing unauthorized and unwarranted motions, and
    failing to appear at the August 5, 2015 disciplinary hearing,
    refuses to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, has
    substantial experience in the practice of law, is indifferent to
    making restitution, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and
    exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive in his disbursement of
    more than $80,000.00 in disputed funds, including more than
    $64,000.00 to himself and his wife.
    In light of the record and the above, disbarment is
    warranted.   We further concur with the Disciplinary Board that,
    in light of the evidence in the record, it is advisable
    Respondent Locricchio be required to successfully complete the
    Hawai'i bar exam as a precondition of any subsequent application
    for reinstatement to practice.    Therefore,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Anthony P.
    Locricchio is disbarred from the practice of law in this
    jurisdiction, effective 30 days after the date of entry of this
    order, pursuant to Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court
    of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH).
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Locricchio shall,
    in accordance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d), file with this court,
    within 10 days after the effective date of his disbarment, an
    5
    affidavit showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d) and this
    order.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of any
    future reinstatement of his license to practice law in this
    jurisdiction, in addition to any other requirement imposed by
    RSCH Rule 2.17, Respondent Locricchio shall take and pass the
    Hawai'i bar examination, and shall submit proof of the foregoing
    appended to any petition for reinstatement.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Locricchio shall
    pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely
    submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond
    thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).
    IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Locricchio’s
    renewed motion for oral argument is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 18, 2016.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCAD-16-0000218

Filed Date: 10/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2016