Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Janet HuntLetterREV7!27!11HawaiiOfficeDisciplinary

Janet HuntLetterREV7!27!11HawaiiOfficeDisciplinary

Ratings: (0)|Views: 107|Likes:
Published by Nanci Meek
Letter to Janet Hunt with Hawaii Office of Disciplinary Counsel asking for assistance and explanation for their rejection of our complaint against Diehl and Bank of Hawaii
Letter to Janet Hunt with Hawaii Office of Disciplinary Counsel asking for assistance and explanation for their rejection of our complaint against Diehl and Bank of Hawaii

More info:

Published by: Nanci Meek on Sep 10, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/01/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Nanci Meek(760) 413-5660August 2, 2011Janet S. Hunt,Office of Disciplinary Counsel1132 Bishop Street, Suite 300
Honolulu, Hawai„i 96813
 RE: Richard Diehl, AttorneyDear Ms. Hunt:I am in receipt of your letter dated July 19, 2011 wherein you advised my claims ofbeing charged excessive fees and alleged other issues regarding questionable conductof Attorney Richard Diehl is closed. I am surprised and disappointed upon receivingyour decision that my case is in such a status, especially when I was not given anopportunity to elaborate on my allegations as I had thought. The matter being closedwithout anyone returning my repeated calls leaves me to question the level of attentionand depth this issue was pursued. The brief time in which it took to render your decisionis by itself questionable. Being unfamiliar with this process but at the same timebelieving procedural questions may be raised, I would have thought at the very least, Iwould have been given opportunities to elaborate on my allegations or given thecourtesy of having my repeated calls returned.The purpose of my calls was to clarify inaccuracies and misinterpretations in yourresponse to my July 7, 2011 letter. My first thoughts were, after reading your letter, thatmy issue may have become confused with another case you may be investigating.However, learning of the circumstances and basis under which my case was closed
(if in fact my case was not confused with another)
it would appear that little attention wasgiven to this matter and that at best, an academic and perfunctory investigation werethe limits of attention my case was given. That being documented, I will not, in thiswriting, elaborate on these errors but will reserve any further comment until such timethat I, as you suggest, advance this matter to the Hawaii State Bar where theseinaccuracies and your misinterpretations will be exposed.As I`m sure you are aware, the Courts ruled in favor of the respondent causing some to
view my pursuing an action or complaint against Mr. Diehl as a “sour grapes”
effort. Iassure you it is not. Additionally, as you may or may not be aware, the matter waslitigated over 8 years. Although the Court ruled against me at practically every turn, Iwas diligent and tenacious in my effort to prevail. I can also give you my assurance thesame level of perseverance will apply in this matter.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->