IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI’I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
LESLIE CLARKE ROUNTREE II,
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s May 2, 2014 petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Leslie Clarke Rountree II, pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai’i (RSCH), the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, the May 8, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline issued by this court, and the record, it appears that, on December 3, 2013, the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Rountree for failing to provide competent representation, failing in one instance to provide any service of value to his client, failing to properly supervise his employees, willfully failing to return unearned fees, willfully sharing a legal fee with non-lawyers, commingling his personal funds with client funds in his trust account, willfully failing to maintain client fundsin a trust account and engaging in an act of moral turpitude by misappropriating for his own use and benefit settlement funds owed to a third party, which, if committed in this jurisdiction, would represent violations of HRPC Rules 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 5.3(b), 5.4(a), and 8.4(c). It further appears that this court’s May 8, 2014 Notice of Reciprocal Discipline was served on Respondent Rountree on May 15, 2014 and, by the terms of the May 8, 2014 order, RSCH Rule 2.15(b), and Rule 6(a) of the Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent Rountree had until June 16, 2014 to respond to the Notice with any reasons as to why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed upon him. Respondent Rountree has failed to respond and a review of the record and precedent demonstrates, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and (d), that reciprocal discipline is authorized and justified. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Leslie Clarke Rountree II is disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3 (a) (1) and 2.15 (c), effective thirty days after the entry of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Rountree shall, in accordance with RSCH Rule 2.l6(d), file with this court within 10 days after the effective date of his disbarment, an affidavit showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Rountree shall bear the costs of these reciprocal proceedings, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(c), upon the timely submission of a verified bill of costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, July 7, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson