Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Khaled S. Mujtabaa

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi suspended attorney Khaled S. Mujtabaa from practicing law for 180 days based on findings of neglect, failure to communicate, mishandling and misappropriation of client funds, and related violations of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Professional Conduct in two disciplinary matters. The court also ordered a practice audit, payment of proceeding costs, and compliance with reinstatement-related requirements.

Holdings

1. Mujtabaa violated HRPC Rules 1.3 and 3.2 by failing to timely file the client's settlement motion and resolve foreclosure issues; HRPC Rule 1.1 by failing to obtain readily available executed settlement documents and by misrepresenting the status of the matter; HRPC Rules 1.4(a) and (b) by failing to communicate adequately; HRPC Rules 1.15(c) and (d) by misappropriating and withdrawing unearned client funds; and HRPC Rules 1.5(b) and 1.15(f)(3) by withdrawing funds without explaining the fee basis or rate and without providing an accounting.
2. Mujtabaa violated HRPC Rules 1.15(c) and (d) by misappropriating client funds and withdrawing them before they were earned; HRPC Rules 1.3 and 3.2 by failing to file litigation for almost five years and misrepresenting the delays; and HRPC Rules 1.5(b) and 1.15(f)(3) by withdrawing funds without explaining the fee basis or rate and without providing an accounting.
3. A period of suspension was appropriate, and Mujtabaa was suspended from the practice of law in Hawai'i for 180 days.
4. The suspension was made effective 30 days after entry of the order, and Mujtabaa was required to complete a practice audit, pay approved costs, and file an affidavit showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mujtabaa violated the specified Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct through neglect, failure to expedite litigation, inadequate communication, improper fee withdrawals, failure to explain fee bases and rates, failure to account, and trust-account misappropriation.
2. Whether a period of suspension was appropriate in light of the misconduct, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors.
3. What disciplinary and reinstatement-related conditions should be imposed.

Disposition

other