OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. STEPHEN CARL WOODRUFF (2016)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Stephen Carl Woodruff, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, the materials subsequently submitted by Respondent Woodruff, and the record as a whole, we note the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) affirmed Respondent Woodruff's disbarment on December 9, 2015 and the matter has since become ripe for disposition by this court, pursuant to Rule 2.15 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i (RSCH).

Upon a thorough review of the record in this matter, and a careful analysis of Respondent Woodruff's arguments, we conclude that Respondent Woodruff did not establish any of the four grounds available under RSCH Rule 2.15(c)(1) – (4) to avoid reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction. We further conclude that, had Respondent Woodruff engaged in this jurisdiction in the misconduct at issue in this matter, in nine separate client representations, said conduct would represent multiple violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a)(2), and 8.1(b) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Professional Conduct (1994), conduct which would warrant disbarment in this jurisdiction, see ODC v. Russell, SCAD-11-358 (May 23, 2011); ODC v. Gravelle, No. 27808 (November 8, 2007); ODC v. Burns, No. 20882 (December 17, 1999). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), that Respondent Woodruff is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai‘i, effective thirty days after the date of entry of this order, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Woodruff shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely submission of a bill of costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).

Paula A. Nakayama

Sabrina S. McKenna

Richard W. Pollack

Katherine G. Leonard

Mark E. Recktenwald