On December 21, 2020, a unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court ordered longtime Honolulu defense attorney, Earle Partington, suspended from the practice of law in Hawaii for six months effective January 31, 2021. In imposing the suspension, the court rejected a recommendation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that Partington be disbarred in Hawaii following a disbarment order issued in California earlier this year.

However, the court’s action appears to mark the end of Partington’s quest to overturn disciplinary action against him by the Navy Judge Advocate General a decade ago, stemming from Partington’s defense in a 2007 courts martial case. The action by the Judge Advocate General resulted in a cascade of similar disciplinary actions by other state and federal courts, including Hawaii, which are tied together via reciprocal discipline agreements. Partington lost a series challenges trying to clear his record and exhausted all appeals, and since then has sought some technical way to gain standing to relitigate the Navy’s original disciplinary decision (see “Attorney faces threat of disbarment while trying to clear his record,” iLind.net, June 17, 2020).

Although Partington avoided being disbarred, he failed to win his broader goal of obtaining a favorable ruling by the Hawaii court that could be used to bootstrap a renewed attempt to challenge the Navy’s disciplinary action and the reciprocal discipline actions that followed.

Partington had asked the high court “to make a finding that it appears that Partington is innocent of the Navy charges and should not have been disciplined” by the Navy.

Instead, the Hawaii court stood by its finding in issued the suspension order issued on December 11, 2020.

Albeit misguidedly, Partington made the decision not to timely file the required affidavit (or declaration) for strategic reasons related to challenging the original military discipline imposed upon him, which gave rise to the California reciprocal disciplinary charges. Respondent Partington has ably served as a practitioner in this state, for many years, and has contributed positively in this jurisdiction, without prior disciplines, except as related to the underlying military disciplinary incident. Yet, the willful disobedience of a valid order of a court, which would violate Rule 3.4(e) of the Hawai5i Rules of Professional Conduct, is a serious matter meriting appropriate discipline.

The Hawaii court also noted Partington had no clients in California when he intentionally failed to submit a form required by that state’s court rules, which resulted in the Hawaii court’s decision to lessen Partington’s penalty from disbarment to a six-month suspension.

In a motion for reconsideration, Partington argued that the Hawaii court offered his only remaining avenue to prove his innocence of the original Navy charges, despite what he said was overwhelming evidence in his favor.

…[U]nless this court judicially reviews the Navy discipline, Partington has no remedy for the grave injustice done to him by the Navy. If this court reviews the Navy discipline, Partington will be vindicated. Only then will Partington have the basis to return to the D.C Circuit. All Partington is asking this court to do is to make a finding that it appears that Partington is innocent of the Navy charges and should not have been disciplined in 2011.

However, the court did not respond to Partington’s plea to comment on the Navy action, dealing a blow to his longstanding search for vindication.