Hawaii Supreme Court, 2010

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Aduja

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Aduja
Hawaii Supreme Court · Decided March 4, 2010

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Aduja

Opinion

NO. 25484 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAlT OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, §§ `" § m§`.‘;; MELODIE R. ADUJA, Respondent. FK

IN RE APPLlCATlON FOR THE REINSTATEMENT ddt §§ MELODIE R. ADUJA ORIGlNAL PROCEEDlNG (ODC OO~383~6729) » ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT (By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the record and the Disciplinary Board’s Report and Recommendation to Deny Melodie R. Aduja’s Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law, it appears contrary to the Disciplinary Board’s Report and Recommendation, that Petitioner Aduja's violation of RSCH 2.l6(h) while suspended was technical and de minimis and that she did not practice law while suspended, lt further appears that Petitioner Aduja has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, rehabilitation, fitness to practice law, competence, compliance with all applicable disciplinary orders and rules, and compliance with other requirements imposed by the court, as required by Rule 2.l7(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of HawaiUU Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Melodie R. Aduja’s Petition for Reinstatement is granted and Petitioner Aduja is reinstated to the practice of law in this jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon payment of all required dues and registration fees, the Clerk shall restore Petitioner Melodie R. Aduja to the roll of attorneys eligible to practice in the State of Hawai°i.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 4, 2010. we l>&¢,n,¢u £¢_‘T\DUL@¢_,L,/ Lww~ /@‘~/»M§ (~ym~wq_€.£¥\.=é£a,;@\» /7/!»¢~¢ Av¢»¢¢c¢,¢.¢/¢J

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.