Schoettle v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000491 15-JUL-2016 10:04 AM SCPW-16-000491 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I WALTER R. SCHOETTLE, Petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, and RICHARD A. PLATEL, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of the May 10, 2016 petition for a writ of mandmamus submitted by Petitioner attorney Walter R. Schoettle, this court concludes nothing in the petition or the attached exhibits supports the conclusion that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has violated a duty owed this court, or abused the discretion delegated to it by this court to investigate the allegations of misconduct lodged by the Petitioner. See Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Hawai#i 60, 64-65, 143 P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006); In re Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368-71, 984 P.2d 688, 69396 (1999); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 51, 57, 979 P.2d 1077, 1083 (1999). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 15, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.