Hawaii Bar Journal March 2016

H

A

W

A

I

I

BAR JOURNAL A N O FFICIAL P UBLICATION

OF THE

H AWAII S TATE BAR A SSOCIATION M ARCH , 2016 $5.00

Uniform Bar Examination: Curse or Cure

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S VO L U M E 2 0 , N U M B E R 3

EDITOR IN CHIEF Carol K. Muranaka BOARD OF EDITORS Christine Daleiden David Farmer Susan Gochros Ryan Hamaguchi Cynthia Johiro Edward Kemper Laurel Loo Melvin M.M. Masuda Melissa Miyashiro Eaton O'Neill Lennes Omuro Brett Tobin Jodi Kimura Yi

ARTICLES 4 22

President-Elect Nadine Ando Vice President Howard Luke Secretary Russ Awakuni Treasurer Mark M. Murakami

Lateral Hiring of Attorneys: Positives With Pitfalls

by Lennes N. Omuro

27

Clinical Building and New Advocacy and Trial Practice Center at UH Law School Receives $1 Million Leadership Gift

OF NOTE

HSBA OFFICERS President Jodi Kimura Yi

The Uniform Bar Examination: Curse or Cure?

by David C. Farmer

14

Case Notes

16

HSBA Happenings

18

Court Briefs

20

Update From Hawaii’s Uniform Law Commissioners

20

Per Diem Judge Applications

21

Notice for Reappointment of Incumbent Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang

30

Off the Record

31

Classifieds

YLD OFFICERS President Ryan Hew Vice President/President-Elect Trejur Bordenave Secretary Catherine Taschner Treasurer Ryan Loeffers EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Patricia Mau-Shimizu GRASS SHACK PRODUCTIONS Publisher Brett Pruitt Art Direction Debra Castro Production Beryl Bloom

Hawaii Bar Journal is published monthly with an additional issue in the second quarter of each year for the Hawaii State Bar Association by Grass Shack Productions, 1111 Nuuanu Ave., Suite 212, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817. Annual subscription rate is $50. Periodical postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Hawaii Bar Journal (ISSN 1063-1585), 1100 Alakea St., Ste. 1000, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.

Advertising inquiries should be directed to: Grass Shack Productions (808)521-1929 FAX: (808)521-6931 brett@grassshack.net

On the cover: (from the Five Elements series) Fire By Pegge Hopper. Born in Oakland, California, and studied at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California. Her first job was with Raymond Loewy Associates in New York, where she designed murals for department stores. This was followed by a year of travel through Europe.

In Milan, Italy she worked for La Rinascente for two years designing posters and graphics. Pegge Hopper moved to Hawaii in 1963 and took a job as an art director with an advertising agency. In 1970, she was inspired to return to painting and opened a gallery in Chinatown in 1983. To see more of her work visit the Pegge Hopper Gallery at 1164 Nuuanu Ave., in Honolulu or www.peggehopper.com Notices and articles should be sent to Edward C. Kemper at edracers@aol.com, Cynthia M. Johiro at cynthia.m.johiro@hawaii.gov, or Carol K. Muranaka at carol.k.muranaka@gmail.com. All submitted articles should be of significance to and of interest or concern to members of the Hawaii legal community. The Hawaii Bar Journal reserves the right to edit or not publish submitted material. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the publisher, editorial staff, or officials of the Hawaii State Bar Association. Publication of advertising herein does not imply endorsement of any product, service, or opinion advertised. The HSBA and the publisher disclaim any liability arising from reliance upon information contained herein. This publication is designed to provide general information only, with regard to the subject matter covered. It is not a substitute for legal, accounting, or other professional services or advice. This publication is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained in this publication is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice.

To become licensed attorneys, we have all run the familiar gauntlet: undergraduate, LSAT, law school and bar examination. We have also been confined to practice only in the jurisdictions in which we have been licensed. Now, coupled with a perceived crisis in this process, the possibility of an essentially national bar examination looms. Falling bar examination scores since July 2014, coupled with declining law school applications and enrollments, at least nationally, and the adoption by some states of a Uniform Bar Examination, have triggered an avalanche of discussion and concern.

In Hawaii, the questions abound.

Have Hawaii applications, enrollments and scores followed

the national trends? Should we be concerned about the recent pass rates and why they have declined? Is the fault with the messenger (the test) or the mes1 sage (the quality of applicants)? Should more applicants pass the Hawaii bar exam, particularly Richardson Law School graduates? Should we be less dependent on the nationally prepared products and switch to using homegrown essay questions to include more Hawaiilaw questions?

Whither Bar Examinations?

To contemplate fully the possible future of bar exams, a short review of 2 their history is in order.

Historically, lawyers have played an active role in determining who and how many would join their ranks as members of the bar. This tradition predates the United States Constitution by more than six centuries, when English courts gov4 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

erned who would be allowed to practice law. Courts have long relied on the rationale that the integrity and competency of practicing attorneys directly affect the quality of justice dispensed.

of bar admission standards, which became far less stringent and far less exclusive. Apprenticeships remained the most common form of legal study, but by 1860, only nine states required any form of legal education for admission to the 3 bar. Written bar examinations, when required, were cursory.

By the late 1800s, a surge in formal law schools spurred a decline in legal apprenticeship programs.

A new wave of interest in improving standards of legal education and bar admission prompted the founding of the American Bar Assoc-iation in 1878 and the A m e r i c a n Association of Law Schools in 1900.

These groups encouraged tougher bar admission standards, including the requirement that all bar candidates complete a written examination used to assess their fitness to practice law. Today, every state offers a bar examination.

Administrative bodies established in each state generally govern the standards and particularities of the bar examination. In keeping with the tradition of attorney self-regulation, these boards usually are made up, at least in part, of licensed attorneys. The boards determine what legal topics will be covered; what types of questions will be asked; what grading methods will be applied; and the locations, dates, and times of examinations. Nearly every state requires, as one component of the examination, the Multistate Bar Examination.

As a result of the legal education entry and the existence of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), first used in 1948, the profession has been greatly democratized, transformed from the perception of it being an old boy network to

The Uniform Bar Examination:

Curse or Cure?

The United States legal system adopted this rationale. Before 1828, states allowed practicing attorneys to determine the competency of prospective attorneys.

Strict rules developed by lawyers at that time typically required an individual to obtain a college degree and work several years as an attorney’s apprentice before being admitted to the practice of law.

Because attorneys controlled who would get apprenticeships, the general public perceived the system as catering to the elite and the old-boy network.

A decline of elitist attitudes surrounding the election of President Andrew Jackson in 1828 prompted a change in the attorney licensing system.

State legislatures divested the authority granted attorneys and reclaimed control

that of a meritocracy with a robust diver4 sity of members, especially in Hawaii.

Are Lawyers Getting Dumber?

Bloomberg Businessweek in August 2015 posed a provocative question: are lawyers getting dumber? The question comes from a debate between the head of the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) and several law school deans and 5 officials. A statement endorsed by 79 law school deans from across the United States, including Hawaii, suggests that the July 2014 NCBE bar examination lacked 6 integrity and fairness.

In July 2014, Idaho bar pass rates dropped 15 percentage points, from 80 percent to 65 percent. Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas scores dropped 9 percentage points or more. By the time all the states published their numbers, it was clear the July exam had been a disaster almost everywhere. Scores on the multiplechoice part of the test registered their largest single-year drop in the four-decade history of the test.

Nationally, February 2015 results 7 continued the downward spiral, although Hawaii’s rate declined by only 2%, from 8 64% to 62%.

July 2015 results continued the trend.

In Pennsylvania, the passage rate for firsttime test takers fell below 80% for the first time since 2003, to 78.3%. In Georgia, the first timers rate dropped almost 7 percentage points, to 73.5%. In Texas, 76.6% of first-time test takers passed, down about 4 percentage points from a year ago. In Florida, first-timers passed at a rate of 68.9%, compared to 71.8% last year.9 In Hawaii, the pass rate swings have not been as dramatic, although the July pass rate did decline by 9% 6 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

from an historically high 2013 rate to a pass rate almost matching that of July 2012 and in line with 2010 and 10 2011 rates: What is also interesting about these statistics is the number taking the exam for the year 2014 dropped by 30 after a steady year-by-year increase from 2010.

In addition, viewed overall, it demonstrates the moving target of statistics of 11 these kinds.

Fewer Law School Applications As also noted in the Bloomberg article, American legal education is in the midst of an unprecedented crisis. In 2015, fewer people applied to law school 12 than at any point in the last 30 years.

Law school enrollments in some jurisdictions are in free fall, and the impression is that some schools have had to survive by admitting students with less-than-sterling 13 credentials.

The applications/admissions numbers in Hawaii do not match the national trends either as to timing or rates of decline (see ‘Recent Applications to 14 Richardson’ chart on page 13).

Law firms and consumers may have to rely in the future on lawyers of a lower caliber. Ultimately the most troubling prospect for the average student is the promise of an opportunity for a legal career, but the reality they face is long odds of becoming a lawyer.

Beneath these trends and arguments lie deeper issues: are any standardized tests a true measure of intelligence or an

accurate predictor of competence and of success in the profession? Should legal education offer a robust and varied curriculum to foster a true intellectual journey, or should it operate as a trade school, teaching to the test?

The NCBE’s Standard and Uniform Bar Examinations Meantime, advocates of the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) developed by NCBE urge jurisdictions, such as Hawaii, to consider seriously its adop15 tion.

NCBE is a U.S. based non-profit organization that develops national (“multistate”) standardized tests for admission to the bar in individual states.

The organization was founded in 1931.

The best-known bar exams developed by NCBE are the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE, all jurisdictions except Louisiana and Puerto Rico; 1972), the Multistate Essay Examination (MEE, 16 26 jurisdictions including Hawaii; 1988), the Multistate Performance Test (MPT, 33 jurisdictions including Hawaii; 1997); and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (all jurisdictions except Maryland, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico; 1980).

The UBE, consisting of the MBE, MEE, and MPT, is uniformly administered, graded, and scored by user jurisdictions, including Hawaii. It results in a portable score that can be transferred to other UBE jurisdictions. New York is 17 among the 16 jurisdictions of the 22 already using all three components of the UBE that have adopted it.

The topic has generated considerable attention and de18 bate.

UBE Pros The UBE’s stated purpose is to “test knowledge

and skills that every lawyer should be able to demonstrate prior to becoming licensed to practice law. It results in a portable score that can be used to apply for admission in other UBE 19 jurisdictions.”

The Conference of Chief Justices and the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar have supported serious consideration 20 of adopting the UBE. They shared the six major points: • the increased demand for lawyer mobility results in greater multijurisdictional practice and increased access to admission on motion; • the increasing use of uniform, high quality testing instruments has rendered most jurisdictions’ bar examinations substantially similar; • law is the only major profession that has not developed a uniform licensing examination; • a uniform licensing examination for lawyers would facilitate lawyer mobility and enhance protection of the public; • state bar admission authorities and state supreme courts would remain responsible for making admission decisions, including establishing character and fitness qualifications and setting passing standards, and enforcing their own rules for admission; and • issues relating to knowledge of local law can be addressed through a mandatory educational component, a separate assessment, or a combination thereof.

On the plus side, user jurisdictions would continue to • decide independently who may sit for the bar exam and who will be admitted to practice; • determine underlying educational requirements; make all character and fitness decisions;

Orion Medical is offering new service from Jan 2016

Forensic analysis of Medical Records and Medical Expert witness, for personal injury cases and others.

More than 35 years of experience of surgical practice in Hawaii- Plus large numbers of consultants in different subspecialties to resolve most complex problems.

We comply with the Ethic Regulations of an American Surgical Society Organization Reasonable fee schedule

Contact Orion Medical at 533-2900

Mediation

&Arbitration

“Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible’!”

- Audrey Hepburn

Dan Bent

Mediator & Arbitrator 548-0080

Dispute Prevention and Resolution, Inc. 1003 Bishop Street Suite 1155 Honolulu, HI 96813

• set their own policies regarding the number of times applicants may retake the bar examination; w w w. Fa i r M e d i a t i o n . c o m March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

7

Named

Hawaii’s #1

Realtor

by Hawaii Business Magazine in June 2014

“

At Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Advantage Realty, the key to our success is our team approach to real estate.

Our team members provide the support needed so we can focus on your specific needs.

”

Myron Kiriu (R) Call 808.864.9000 MyronK@BetterHawaii.com MyronKiriu.com

Myron Kiriu CEO/Owner, Realtor® RB-17242

Ambur Kiriu Owner/VP, Public Relations

SHERRIE SASAKI

DAVELYN TENGAN

KERRI TAMAKAWA

YUKO OMORAI

TARYN LOO

MARY MARTIN

DEBBIE JOW ITO

Realtor-Associate, JD Team Manager

Realtor-Associate Client Services Specialist

Realtor-Associate, JD Listing Specialist

Realtor-Associate Buyers Specialist

Realtor-Associate Customer Relations Specialist

Realtor-Associate Transaction Specialist

Realtor-Associate Technology Marketing Specialist

BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS REAL ESTATE ADVANTAGE REALTY | KAHALA MALL, UPPER LEVEL, 4211 WAIALAE AVE. BOX 9050, HONOLULU, HI 96816 | (808) 738-3633 ©

2015 Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Advantage Realty. Better Homes and Gardens® is a registered trademark of Meredith Corporation licensed to Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC. Equal Opportunity Company. Equal Housing Opportunity. An Independently Owned & Operated Franchise.

• make Americans with Disabilities 21 Act decis ions ; g rade the MEE and MPT; • set their own pre-release regrading policies; assess candidate knowledge of jurisdiction-specific content through a separate test, course, or some combination of the two if the jurisdiction chooses; • accept MBE scores earned in a previous examination or concurrently in another jurisdiction for purposes of making local admission decisions if they wish; and • set their own passing scores; and determine how long incoming UBE 22 scores will be accepted.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, has expressed cogent reasons why California should 23 adopt the UBE. Applied to Hawaii, the arguments in favor would include the following: • Forcing students to memorize detailed, Hawaii-specific rules, most of which they will never need to know and which they will promptly forget, does not ensure even minimal competence, the stated testing goal for Hawaii examinees.

• Restrictive policies may please some already established lawyers who have no intention of leaving Hawaii, but they are not good for clients who have fewer choices as a result, as well as for lawyers who value geographic mobility.

Because the legal market is not currently 24 robust, requiring lawyers to restrict their job searches to the states in which they have passed the bar exam seems unfair.

• Because the UBE has been adopted in 17 jurisdictions, more resources can be devoted to constructing UBE questions than could be devoted to bar examinations in Hawaii.

• UBE scores are more portable than current bar examination scores because the UBE score is relatively easy to transfer to other states that also use the UBE, subject to state-specific requirements. The legal world is becoming increasingly national and global and thus enhancements to the portability of bar examina-

tion passage would benefit younger lawyers.

• States including Hawaii have already recognized that entirely separate exams are unnecessary. The MBE, a 200question, day-long, multiple-choice test, introduced in 1972, has long been a component in Hawaii. Indeed, Hawaii is already using all of the components of the UBE. • Under a uniform exam, Hawaii can still set its own threshold for a passing score and can still impose other requirements. New York, for example, requires the completion of an online course dedicated to New York state law and the passage of a short multiple-choice test. In California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, an applicant who has not attended law school may take the bar exam after study under a judge or practicing attorney for an extended period of time, the method known as “reading law” or “reading the law.” New York requires that applicants who are reading the law have at least one year of law school study. Maine allows students with two years of law school to serve an apprenticeship in lieu of completing their third year.

• Legal education might actually benefit if Hawaii adopted the UBE. Many studies have demonstrated that there is no relationship between the courses a student takes and the odds of passing the bar. Also, almost everyone takes a commercial preparation course before taking the bar. But, out of fear, many students burden their schedules with dull classes, and they take fewer classes they might actually like, or that might be more useful to them in their professional careers. The UBE, which focuses on basic subjects that virtually all students take, would free students of this pressure.

• In the medical profession, a national board of medical examiners sponsors a national licensing exam. Physicians are not required to pass new tests every time they move from one state to another.

Shouldn’t there be a similar system in place for lawyers? The contra argument might be that, while illness knows no bor-

ders, laws do; but query whether, aside from the variable, jurisdictionspecific substantive law that most bar exams do not test, the legal reasoning process is universal.

UBE Concerns and Objections Among the concerns and objections cited about the adoption of the UBE were its absence of questions on state law and the fact that it would give the NCBE much greater power in the bar credentialing process. Also, would law school education simply transform into teaching to the test?

Unspoken but almost certainly lurking beneath the surface of public debate is the fact that not only California but many jurisdictions have an interest in keeping the state’s market closed to outsiders and maintaining in California what is considered the most difficult bar exam in the country. The California Bar Association is not currently considering changing its method, although perhaps continued pressure from the state’s law schools will sway the bar in time.

Similarly, in the sunshine retirement states like Hawaii, Florida, and Arizona, the specter of a parade of horribles in the form of retirees flooding the marketplace, taking jobs away from locals, is enough to dissuade adoption of the UBE, whether 25 proper or not.

Before its adoption in New York, the New York County Lawyers Association on February 12, 2015 issued a Report on the New York Uniform Bar Exam Proposal (the “Report”), expressing concerns sufficient to not adopt the UBE at 26 that time.

Among others, the Report expressed concern on the impact on the public of adoption of the UBE in the 17 states that have currently adopted it, all of which have done so since 2011. While this impact is not now known, the Association admitted it was unaware of any negative reaction to the UBE in any state in which it had been adopted. Some of the concerns expressed in the Report could be considered here in Hawaii: • The costs and fees that would be imposed for administration of the UBE in Hawaii, when compared to the modest March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

9

$500 current cost of the examination for first time takers.

• The need for further study of possible disparate impact of the change on minorities, indigent examination takers, and graduates of foreign law schools. For example, although Hawaii’s costs of a legal education are substantially lower than those of other similar state schools elsewhere, not everyone can afford the cost of a bar review course such as BARBRI bar review, which currently charges $3,495. With students carrying an aver27 age school loan debt of $60,000 and needing to be employed after graduation, the economic impact of some is substantial.

Thank you for volunteering your time in 2015 to help the most vulnerable in our community get the legal help that they need.

We hope you will continue to provide pro bono services in 2016 and improve access to justice to those that need it the most.

"I believe the world may not be fair but it should be just."-Legal Aid Society of Hawaii staff attorney To volunteer with the Partnership in Pro Bono Program or Honolulu District Court Access to Justice Room, please contact: Sergio Alcubilla Director of External Relations 808-527-8063 sergio.alcubilla@legalaidhawaii.org www.legalaidhawaii.org

10 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

• Would adoption of the UBE undermine the perception that Hawaii law is unique and, if so, would Hawaii law be seen as less attractive for contracting parties deciding on whether to insert Hawaii choice of law and choice of forum in contracts? If so, would the decline in Hawaii choice of law clauses adversely affect Hawaii lawyers by reducing the number of disputes that are brought here by way of contractual choice of forum and choice of law clauses?

• Would adoption of the UBE encourage recent graduates from out of state to move to Hawaii, relying on their passage of the UBE in another state, thereby increasing competition for entry level positions?

The Bottom line Bar pass rates and the legal labor market in Hawaii, as elsewhere, are dynamic factors and will always vary over time. In some ways, the debate about the UBE reflects a clash between the academic community’s interest in fostering a robust and varied legal education experience and courts grappling with how best to protect its citizens by ensuring the quality and competency of lawyers.

In, Hawaii, the Hawaii Board of Bar 28 Examiners administers the bar examination subject to the Rules promulgated 29 by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The decision whether to adopt the UBE ultimately vests with the Court, with input from the Bar and our law school.

Assume that we are concerned about the recent pass rates and believe that (1) more applicants should pass the Hawaii bar exam, particularly Richardson Law 30 School graduates; (2) we should be less dependent on the NCBE and its products (particularly the MEE and the MPT); and (3) we should return to using homegrown essay questions to include more Hawaiilaw questions. Even if Hawaii were to adopt the UBE, we can still assess applicants’ knowledge of Hawaii-specific content through a separate test, course, or some combination of the two if the Court so chooses. In addition, the costs of changing horses in mid-stream for any contemplated total replacement of NCBE products could be prohibitive, especially in the current fiscal climate where state budgets are extremely tight.

In may very well be that that the bottom line is that, if it’s not broken, there’s no need to fix it.

Stay tuned for vigorous debate and future developments.31 __________________ 1

Or perhaps as the Rolling Stones put it in 1965, “It’s the Singer, not the Song.”

2

See generally American Bar Association/Bureau of National Affairs. 1995.

ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct; Bosse, Diane F., and Lawrence M. Grosberg. 2003. “The Bar Exam: Should the Test Continue in its Current Form or are Alternatives needed?” New York Law Journal Magazine 2 (April): 12; Curcio, Andrea A. 2002.

“A Better Bar: Why and How the Existing Bar Exam Should Change. Nebraska Law Review 81 (winter): 363– 423; Curriden, Mark. 1995.

“Lawyers Who Skip Law School.” American Bar Association Journal 81 (February); Garth, Bryant G. 1983. “Rethinking the Legal Profession’s Approach to Collective Self-Improvement: Competence and the Consumer Perspective.

Wisconsin Law Review 1983; Getz, Malcolm, John Siegfried, and Terry Calvani. 1981.

“Competition at the Bar: The Correlation between the Bar Examination Pass Rate and the Profitability of Practice.” Virginia Law Review 67; Pobjecky, Thomas A. “The Florida Board of Bar Examiners: The Constitutional Safeguard between Attorney Aspirants and the Public.”

Nova Law Review 18; Rogers, W. Sherman.

1989. “Title VII Preemption of State Bar Examinations: Applicability of Title VII to State Occupational Licensing Tests.” Howard Law Journal 32; “Society of American Law Teachers Statement on the Bar Exam, July 2002.” 2002.

Journal of Legal Education 52 (September): 446–52.

3

Abraham Lincoln, who attended school for less than a year, became a lawyer under an Illinois law enacted in 1833. This law stated that to be a lawyer someone had to “obtain a certificate procured from the court of an Illinois county certifying to the applicant’s good moral character.” Lincoln actually went to the Illinois Supreme Court to get his certificate. On September 9, 1836, a license to practice law was issued to Abraham Lincoln by two of the justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. Later, in a more formal session, on March 1, 1837, Lincoln appeared before the clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court and took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of Illinois. Lincoln swore he would “in all things faithfully execute the duties of Attorney and Counselor at Law.” Lincoln was then formally enrolled as an attorney licensed to practice law in all the courts of the state of Illinois.

(Winter 2014): http://www.americanbar.org/publications/syllabus_home/volume-46-2014- 2015/syllabus-vol-46-no-2-winter-2014-2015/from-the-managing-director.html; Max Nisen, “America’s law school applications just keep falling,” QUARTZ, June 12, 2015: http://qz.com/426916/americaslaw-school-applications-just-keep-falling/; Mark Hansen, “As law school enrollment drops, experts disagree on whether the bottom is in sight,” ABA Journal, March 01, 2015: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/as_law_school_enrollment_d rops_experts_disagree_on_whether_the_bottom.

6

In particular, the investigation should examine the integrity and fairness of the July 2014 exam as well as the overall reliability of the multistate components of the exam. We request that the NCBE provide all data in its possession on reliability or fairness of the July 2014 exam and all data necessary for independent expert review of the same.

4

As of 2015, the HSBA reported these demographics for its 7,641 members: other ethnicity (34%), Caucasians (27.5%), Japanese (21.8%), Chinese (9.3%), and Hawaiians o r Part-Hawaiians (7%): http://hsba.org/images/hsba/HSBA/Annual%20Stat istics%20Results/2015%20Bar%20Statistics%20an d%20Summaries.pdf. The UH law school reports a current student body composed of 64.6% minorities, 54% women, and 46% men. http://law-schools.startclass.com/l/40/University-ofHawaii.

The progress is not as dramatic in other jurisdictions like California. See, e.g., Aviva Cuyler, “Diversity in the Practice of Law: How Far Have We Come?” ABA GPSOLO, Volume 29 Number 5, September/October 2012: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/20 12/september_october/diversity_practice_law_how_far_ have_we_come.html.

5

See Natalie Kitroeff, “Are Lawyers Getting Dumber? Yes, says the woman who runs the bar exam,” Bloomberg Businessweek, August 20, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-08-20/are-lawyers-getting-dumber- See also Mark Hansen, “Are Lawyers Getting Dumber?

Empty Theory or Troubling Trend,” LAW BLOG August 20, 2015: http://blogs.wsj.com /law/2015/08/20/are-lawyers-getting-dumberempty-theory-or-troubling-trend/; Derek Muller, “Here we go again: February 2015 bar pass rates down over last year, EXCESS OF DEMOCRACY, August 2015”: http://excessofdemocracy.com /blog/2015/4/ here-we-go-again-february-2015-barpass-rates-down-over-last-year; Erica Moeser, “President’s Page,” The Bar Examiner, December 2014: http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 Fassets%2Fmedia_files%2FBarExaminer %2Farticles%2F2015%2F840215PresidentsPage.pdf; Barry A. Currier, “Each of Us Has a Responsibility,” SYLLABUS, v.46, n. 2

We also request that the NCBE provide the evidence it relied on in making the statement that the takers of the bar exam in July 2014 were less able than those in 2013.

Moving forward, we ask that the NCBE work with law school deans and state bar examiners to release to law schools detailed scoring and scaling data for our respective graduates. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/admini strative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/co uncil_reports_and_resolutions/March2015CouncilMate rials/2014_ncbe_letter_re_bar_exam_outcomes.authche ckdam.pdf.

But see “Did the 79 law school deans who challenged NCBE Chief Erica Moeser’s “less able” explanation for falling bar passage rates lower admission standards at their own schools?” http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2015/11 /did-79-law-school-deans-who-challenged.html 7

Derek T. Muller “Here We Go Again: February 2015 Bar Pass Rates Down Over Last Year,” Excess of Democracy blog: http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2015/4/here-we-go-again-february-2015-bar-pass-rates-down-over-last-year.

8

Sheri Qualters, “Bar Exam Pass Rates Drop across the Country, The National Law Journal, November 23, 2015:http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202743222671/Bar-ExamPass-Rates-Drop-Across-the-Countr y? mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL. 10

(See chart on page 13.)

The data is provided semi-annually by the Hawaii Supreme Court to the NCBE. 11

Statement of Law School Deans We, the undersigned law school deans, respectfully request that the National Conference of Bar Examiners facilitate a thorough investigation of the administration and scoring of the July 2014 bar exam.

The methodology and results of the investigation should be made fully transparent to all law school deans and state bar examiners.

R. J. Norton, “A Very Brief Summary Of The Legal Career Of Abraham Lincoln”: http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln91.html.

9

According to the data provided by Hawaii at Manoa, William S. Richardson School of Law, since 2004, Richardson graduates have consistently had higher pass rates for the July examinations. https://www.law.hawaii.edu/about -us/quickfacts/bar.

A snarky footnote of the debate about the reliability of NCBE scores centers on the fact that Wisconsin, where the NCBE is headquartered in Madison, is the only state that does not require its local graduates to take the bar exam in order to practice law. Some of the law school critics who pointed blame to the NCBE examination process itself seized on an ad hominem attack on the fact that Erica Moeser, the current NCBE president and CEO and a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, never sat for any exam.

12

An estimated projected fall 2015 national first-year enrollment is at 35,000, down from 52,000 a few years ago. More law schools are appearing. 204 law schools are currently accredited by the American Bar Association, with several more in the pipeline. Erica Moeser, President’s Page, The Bar Examiner, March 2015: http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files /Bar-Examiner/articles/2015/840115-abridged.pdf.

13

The NCBE has suggested that the decline in law school enrollment accounts for the score drop. Critics disagree: However, if there’s supposed to be a dropoff in scores because of a drop-off in enrollment (and there is, indeed, some meaningful correlations between the two), it doesn’t explain the severity of the drop in this case.

Derek T. Muller, “National Conference Of Bar Examiners: Class Of 2014 ‘Was Less Able’ Than Class Of 2013,” Excess of Democracy blog: http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2014/10 /national-conference-of-bar-examiners- class-of-2014-was-lessable-than-class-of-2013 (See ‘Mean scaled MBE scores and entering 1L class size, 1989-2014’ chart on page 13.)

The July 2015 disastrous New York results fuel the argument that law schools across the country are lowering their admission standards to fill enrollments. See, e.g., “New York Bar Exam Results Reveal Worst Pass Rates in More Than a Decade”: The NCBE, the national Wisconsinbased non-profit that prepares widely used standardized portions of the bar exam, and other law school observers say the numbers are declining in part because law schools are admitting weaker students to compensate for smaller applicant pools.

According to law school researchers, the population of students entering law March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

11

school with LSAT scores in the highest percentiles has shrank between 2010 and 2013, while law schools enrolled many more students scoring in the bottom end of the entrance exam.

That view is controversial with some law school deans who say the quality of their graduates hasn’t changed that much. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/10/new-york-barexam-results-reveal-worst-pass-rates-in-almost-a-decade. and “New York Bar Exam Pass Rate Hits Historic Low”: What is to be done about this problem? There’s a relatively simple solution that no one will pursue because money matters above all else in this world. Law schools need to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to admitting students to fill their otherwise empty seats.

Admission standards must be raised to end this misery. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/10/27/new-yorkbar-exam-pass-rate-hits-historic low/?mod=wsj_valettop_email.

14

These statistics were kindly provided by Elisabeth Steele Hutchison, Director of Admissions, with the assistance of Dean Avi Soifer, University of Hawaii at Manoa, William S. Richardson School of Law. 15

On the other hand, some have suggested that the UBE was a factor in declining pass rates, an assertion denied by the NCBE: Some have questioned whether adoption of the Uniform Bar Examination has been a factor in slumping pass rates. It has not. In most UBE jurisdictions (there are currently 14), the same test components are being used and the components are being combined as they were before the UBE was adopted. As noted above, it is the MBE, with scores equated across time that reveals a decline in performance of the cohort that took July 2014 bar examinations.

Erica Moeser, Memorandum, October 23, 2014: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/admini strative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/co uncil_reports_and_resolutions/March2015CouncilMate rials/2014_ncbe_letter_re_bar_exam_outcomes.authche ckdam.pdf.

16

Before adopting the MEE, members of the Hawaii Board of Examiners wrote and graded the essay questions, with no particular confidence as to the questions’ reliability or fairness.

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming as of the date of this article.

18

See, e.g., Jack Silverstein, “Getting in uniform”: http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2015/0 12 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

7/10/Uniform-Bar-Exam-7-10-15.aspx. Although not yet adopted in California, proponents are urging adoption. Casey C. Sullivan, “Deans and Scholars Pressure California to Adopt Uniform Bar Exam” http://blogs. findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2015/06/deans-scholars-pressure-california-toadopt-uniform-bar-exam.html. Additional resources about the UBE may be found at http://www.ncbex.org/exams/ube/further-reading/.

19

See http://www.ncbex.org/exams/ube/.

20

See Conference of Chief Justices, Resolution 4, adopted as proposed by the CCJ Professionalism and Competence of the Bar Committee at the 2010 Annual Meeting, July 28, 2010: http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2Fdmsdocu ment%2F137; ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Resolution Endorsing Consideration of a Uniform Bar Examination, adopted August 6, 2010: http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 Fdmsdocument%2F141.

21

42 U.S. Code § 12101 et seq.

22 If a jurisdiction simply wants to increase its pass rate, it can simply lower the passing score.

Of the 45 states currently using NCBE tests, passing scores range from 129 (Wisconsin) to 145 (Delaware). Ultimately, the decision to adjust the passing score or adjusting section weights should be made on substantive grounds and must balance the competing needs of public protection (i.e., admitting law school graduates who possess minimal competency to practice law) and nonrestriction of freedom to practice and the need to provide the state with a supply of qualified practitioners.

23

Erwin Chemerinsky, “It’s time for California to accept the Uniform Bar Exam,” Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2015: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0511chemerinsky-standard-bar-exam-20150511-story.html.

24

Elizabeth Olson, “Burdened with Debt, Law School Graduates Struggle in Job Market,” New York Times (April 26, 2015): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/business/deal book/burdened-with-debt-law-school-graduates-strugglein-job-market.html?_r=0.

25

Susan Taylor Martin, “Firestorm over plan to let out-of-state lawyers practice in Florida without passing exam,” Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/news/firestorm-over-planto-let-out-of-state-lawyers-practice-in-florida/2238032.

26

See New York County Lawyers Association Report on the New York Uniform Bar Exam Proposal, approved by the Board of the New

York County Lawyers Association on February 12, 2015: http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/ Publications/Publications1746_0.pdf.

27

Telephone interview with Dean Avi Soifer, University of Hawaii at Manoa, William S. Richardson School of Law, Richardson Law School, 9/9/2015.

28 Robert A. Chong, Esq., has served as Chair of the Supreme Court’s Board of Bar Examiners since 1993. He has served as a trustee for the NCBE, is currently serving a one-year term as secretary, and has been elected to become chair of the national board in August 2016.

29

Hawaii Board of Bar Examiners Rules of Procedure.

30

According to third party information available on the internet (http://law-schools.s tartclass.com/l/40/University-of-Hawaii), 82.6% of University of Hawaii students pass the bar exam on their first try, although that figure varies yearby-year. Cf. fn. 8, supra, (since 2004 Richardson graduates have consistently had higher pass rates for the July examinations): https://www.law. hawaii.edu/about-us/quick-facts/bar. For the latest July 2015 results, the overall pass rate was 69%, and the UH rate was 71%, continuing that trend.

31

Advocates for widespread adoption of the UBE are recently enjoying some momentum.

First, the Conference of Chief Justices adopted a resolution February 2, 2016 — three and a half years after it last urged UBE consideration — where the CCJ endorsed the ABA Law Student Division’s Resolution 109 for the ABA House of Delegates. On February 8, 2016, the House passed Resolution 109, which “urges the bar admission authorities in each state and territory” to adopt the Uniform Bar Exam “expeditiously.” http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/washington-d-cadopts-uniform-bar-exam; http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/admini strative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/co uncil_reports_and_resolutions/December2015CouncilM eeting/2015_lsd_%20resolution_ube_final.authcheckdam.pdf

by David C. Farmer The author David C. Farmer is a graduate of and formerly a visiting and adjunct professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law, was licensed in Hawaii in 1985, and has been a member of the HSBA Publications Committee and the Supreme Court’s Board of Bar Examiners since 1991. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect those of the HSBA, the Board of Bar Examiners or the Supreme Court.

March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

13

CASE NOTES Appeal Pointers

An appeal is in default if the record on appeal is not filed with the appellate clerk within 60 days after the notice of appeal is filed. Relief from default must be obtained from the appellate court. Failure to cure the default may result in dismissal of the appeal. HRAP 11(a).

Supreme Court Criminal

State v. Abdon, No. SCWC-130000086, January 13, 2016, (Wilson, J.).

Appellant asserted that the ICA gravely erred in rejecting his claim that his postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted by the circuit court. In the post-verdict motion, Appellant contended that the State failed to adduce evidence at trial of the date his prosecution commenced, and

14 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

accordingly, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt “[f]acts establishing that the offense was committed within” the statute of limitations as required by Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 701-114(1)(e) and 701-108. The Hawaii Supreme Court decided that Appellant’s claim was unavailing because the date the prosecution commenced—i.e., the date of the indictment—was subject to judicial notice as requested by the State.

Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

Although the Hawaii Supreme Court also held that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt facts establishing the timeliness of the prosecution, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Intermediate Court of Appeals Civil Procedure

Martinez v. State of Haw. Bd. of

Nursing, No. CAAP-15-0000121, January 11, 2016, (Foley, J.). Petitioner asserted the following points of error: (1) DCCA failed to provide adequate notice of the charges against her; (2) the circuit court erred in deferring to the Board of Nursing (Board) because the final order was based on an incorrect interpretation of Haw. Admin. R. § 16-89-60(5); (3) the hearing officer erred in sustaining DCCA’s objection to Petitioner’s testimony regarding past disclosures to the Board; and (4) the DCCA improperly submitted evidence of a 2005 complaint against Petitioner. The ICA agreed that the DCCA’s amended petition failed to sufficiently satisfy Hawaii’s administrative pleading requirements. Petitioner was found to have violated a statute based on facts not alleged in the DCCA’s amended petition and therefore could not have intelligently prepared a defense.

Criminal State v. Curtis, No. CAAp-120000123, December 31, 2015, (Nakamura, C.J.). A FedEx employee,

suspecting a parcel contained illegal narcotics, alerted law enforcement. The Kauai police applied for an anticipatory search warrant, which is “a warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place.”

United States v. Grubb, 547 U.S. 90, 94 (2006). The search warrant did not contain the triggering condition, a search after the occurrence of a future event.

The police searched the residence and found the contents of the open parcel and various drug paraphernalia.

Defendants moved to suppress the warrant. The circuit court denied the request and the ICA affirmed. In this case, (1) the officer’s affidavit made clear that the execution of the search warrant was conditioned on the delivery of the FedEx package to the residence to be searched; and (2) this triggering condition was satisfied before the warrant was executed.

Foreclosure U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Smith, No. CAAP-14-0001018, January 11, 2016, (Foley, J.). Appellants contended that the circuit court erroneously found that they did not timely exercise their right to rescind their loan under TILA. The ICA agreed with Appellants. Appellants refinanced their home and entered into a loan in 2006 with another lender.

Appellants’ counsel mailed Appellants’ notice of rescission to the first and second lenders fewer than three years after the consummation of the loan transaction. Therefore, Appellants’ rescission was timely and the circuit court erred in finding that the statute of repose had expired on Appellants’ TILA claims.

Labor Yadao v. State, No. CAAP-130001097, January 21, 2016, (Leonard, J.). Appellant asked the ICA to vacate the Appellee’s decision and order regarding the compensability of his per-

sonal injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Appellant was a forestry worker responding to a forest fire during which he was carrying a fiftypound backpack. While walking on steep, uneven, and unstable terrain, Appellant fell and hit his left knee on a rock but continued to work after the fall.

Following the fall, Appellant did not seek treatment for his knee. However, Appellant did report his injury to his employer later. The Director of Labor denied Appellant’s worker’s compensation claim, concluding that Appellant did not sustain injury to his left knee arising out of the course of his employment.

Appellant appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) who denied Appellant’s claim.

The ICA concluded that Appellant’s MRI report, submitted late, was important new evidence and the LIRAB should not have denied Appellant’s motion to reopen and for reconsideration.

A 45-minute drive from Bishop Street can change everything.Without distractions great things can be accomplished.

Firm Retreats w Strategic Planning w Training Workshops www.windwardretreat.org 808.551.1929

March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

15

HSBA HAPPENINGS HWL Lunch Program HSBA Partnership

The HSBA is excited to announce its co-sponsorship of the Hawaii Women Lawyers’ (“HWL”) Lady Lawyers lunch program in 2016. This collaboration was established to better serve HSBA members by expanding access to the informative HWL lunch programs via live streaming webcast to HSBA members on the Neighbor Islands, and to allow members to earn CLE credit for certain qualifying programs.

CLE Credit Guidelines: Registration is required for all CLE credit registrants.

Registrations for CLE credit registration will close at 12:00 p.m. HST on the Friday before the program is scheduled.

A fee of $25 (HWL members) or $30 (non-HWL members) is required to earn CLE credit. There will be no retroactive CLE credit registration nor will any refunds be given for no shows. Walk-ins will not be eligible for CLE credit.

Live Webcasting Guidelines: Live webcast is available for anyone interested. Registration is required for all webcasters. Registration for live webcasting will close at 12:00 p.m. HST on the Friday before the program is scheduled.

The fee of $25 (HWL members) or $30 (non-HWL members) will be charged only for those webcasters who wish to earn CLE credit. CLE credit registrants must submit their credit request online at the end of the program for certification purposes.

Live Attendance (non-CLE registrant) Guidelines: Live attendees are strongly encouraged to register online at no cost. A limited number of seats will be set aside for walk-ins.

16 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

Please save these dates for future programs in 2016: March 28, April 25, May 23, June 27, July 25, August 22, September 26, and October 24. All programs will be held at the HSBA Conference Room, at 1100 Alakea Street, Suite 1000 from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.

Questions? Please contact CLE@hsba.org or 537-1868 and ask for the CLE Department.

clients, has identified individual bankers who are ready, willing and able to provide the Hawaii State Bar Association and its members professional banking solutions. For questions and requests concerning banking services at Bank of Hawaii, call Naomi Masuno for business matters at 694-8332 and Amy Miller for consumer matters at 694-4716.

Save the Date

Member Benefits Spotlight

Hawaii State Federal Credit Union HSBA members are eligible for membership with the Hawaii State Federal Credit Union. The Hawaii State Federal Credit Union offers low rates on business loans and lines of credit, mortgages, home equity lines of credit, auto loans, and personal loans. Additional services include free E-Checking accounts, surcharge free access to over 400 ATMs statewide, free online and mobile banking, and much more. For details, call 808-587-2700 or 1-888-5861056 (toll free).

Central Pacific Bank is pleased to offer HSBA members exclusive status as a client of the Specialized Markets team.

This team specializes in servicing specific industries and works in partnership with clients to help them succeed by combining financial expertise with industry knowledge and insights. HSBA members receive expedited IOLTA account processing and a bonus for opening an Exceptional Checking account.

Bank of Hawaii Banking Solutions Bankoh, recognizing that busy Hawaii lawyers sometimes need special attention and expedited banking services for themselves, their firms, for cases and for

In April 2016, there will be an Exchange Event in Tokyo, Japan pursuant to the Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association and the HSBA Friendship Agreement. In addition to meeting colleagues residing in Tokyo, CLE opportunities are being planned.

For additional information, please contact the International Law Section C h a i r, R e x F u j i c h a k u a t rfujichaku@bfrhawaii.com.

44th Annual Law Day Golf Tournament

The HSBF and HSBA are once again co-sponsoring the Annual Law Day Golf Tournament on Friday, May 13, 2016 at Malama Bay Golf Course at Hickam Air Force Base. The tournament has a 44-year history, which allows avid (and not so avid) golfers to enjoy a day on the greens. The Golf Tournament will begin with a shotgun start at 12:30 p.m. sharp. The maximum capacity is 144 players, which will be filled on a first-come first-served basis. The reasonable tournament fee includes course and cart fees and the entertaining post-tournament awards banquet. Deadline for applications is April 8, 2016. For more information, please contact Calvin Young at calvin.young@hawadvocate.com.

2016 Leadership Institute Leadership Institute Application available at www.hsba.org

WHY SHOULD I APPLY? Attorneys who want to take the next step in the development of their leadership skills. Fellows will meet and interact with prominent legal and community leaders, gaining insight from their experience; become better prepared to take on leadership opportunities and challenges; explore long term opportunities; and form lifelong relationships with other Hawaii attorneys.

WHAT IS THE COST? The cost of the program is $200, and is due upon acceptance into the program to help defray expenses. Air and ground transportation expenses on each program day will be covered for qualifying Neighbor Island attorneys.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE? Any HSBA attorney who is in good standing, has practiced 3-15 years and can commit to attend all sessions of the program, complete monthly surveys and complete an approved HSBA Post-Institute project. The selection process will be competitive, based on resume submissions and responses to the application. Class size is limited to a maximum of 15 Fellows.

HOW DOES IT WORK? Fellows will spend four hours per month interacting with presenters and digesting information together. Exact dates and times will be noted on the candidate agreement page. Each program is facilitated by Bar members and will feature prominent leaders of the legal profession and the greater community. At the end of the program, each Fellow is required to undertake an approved project demonstrating their commitment to leadership.

EXAMPLES OF 2015 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS We the People Domestic Abuse and Homelessness HPD Chief Louis Kealoha, HPD Deputy Chief Dave Kajihiro, Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro, SHOPO President Tenari Maafala, CEO Nancy Kreidman (Domestic Violence Action Center), Annette Amaral (Hawaii Paroling Authority), UH Assistant Dean Ronnette Kawakami, UH Dean Avi Soifer, Donna Leong (Corporation Counsel), HPD Major Lisa Mann, Daniel Gluck (American Civil Liberties), Councilwoman Kymberly Pine, IHS Director Connie Mitchell, Director Jenny Lee (Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law & Economic Justice), Director Scott Morishige (Phocused)

Meet the Bench Leadership on the Bench & in the Community US Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway, Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren, Bankruptcy Judge Robert Faris, Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, Associate Justice Michael Wilson, ICA Associate Judge Lisa Ginoza, Circuit Court Judges Steven Alm, Bert Ayabe, Virginia Crandall, and District Court Judge Paul Wong

Corporate Hawaii Leadership in the Business Community Robin Kobayashi (Hawaiian Airlines), John Komeiji (Hawaiian Telcom), Nathan Nelson (The Gas Company), Catherine Ngo (Central Pacific Bank), Melissa Pavlicek (Hawaii Public Policy Advocates), Steven Sue (Lemonade Alley and BizGym)

Deadline for Applications: Friday, April 1, 2016

COURT BRIEFS Advocates for Abused and Neglected Children Needed

Maui’s Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) Program is recruiting volunteers to be trained as advocates for abused and neglected children in the Family Court system. Interested persons must attend a 30-hour mandatory CASA training program on May 16, 18, 20, 23 and 25 in Wailuku, Maui. (Candidates must attend all training dates.)

After successful completion of the training and criminal background checks, CASA volunteers will be appointed by a judge to represent a child and advocate for the child’s best interest.

Volunteers will gather all pertinent information on the case, submit written recommendations to the judge, and attend court hearings on behalf of the child.

Interested candidates must be at least 21 years old and willing to commit between four to 20 hours per month working on a child’s case. Volunteers are typically assigned one case at a time and remain on the case until the child is placed in a safe and permanent home, which may take up to 18 months.

Attorneys who complete the CASA training may be considered for contracts as guardian ad litem or as parent counsel.

Please call (808) 244-2729 for more information.

Third Circuit Seeking Applicants for Independent Grand Jury Counsel

The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit is seeking applications for Independent Grand Jury Counsel. The compensation shall be as provided by law.

18 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

In accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (§612-51 to §612-57), the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court appoints grand jury counsel for the four judicial circuits of the state, selecting from among those individuals licensed to practice law in Hawaii who are not public employees.

If you are interested in being considered for a one-year appointment to either Hilo or Kona, please submit a letter indicating your interest and resume

by April 15, 2016 to: Chief Judge Ronald Ibarra Keakealani Building 79-1020 Haukapila St. Kealakekua, HI 96750 Also, fax a copy to: Lester Oshiro, Chief Court Administrator Fax: 808-961-7577 Kauai Girls Court Celebrates Success of First Cohort

The Kauai Girls Court held its first Celebration event on January 14, 2016, at the Kauai Judiciary Complex.

Parents, staff, and invited guests came together to recognize the achievements of the first three participants to complete the program.

Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald praised the program’s first alumni for their hard work, and offered his personal thanks to the many people who made the Kauai Girls Court possible.

Girls Court is the Judiciary’s innovative effort to stem the rising tide of female delinquency in Hawaii, where

the proportion of female juvenile arrests has been significantly higher than the national average. Hawaii launched one of the nation‘s first Girls Court models in 2004 on Oahu. It has proven to be a remarkable success. Girls Court participants have committed 88% fewer violations of the law, 98% fewer status offenses, and the number of runaways has decreased by 89%.

Kauai Girls Court presiding Judge Trudy Senda explained, “It is imperative that we, as a community, understand that girls have different needs, learn differently, and should be treated differently than their male counterparts in the criminal justice system. The more intensive support, supervision, and services that the Girls Court is able to provide, is critical to helping these young women prepare for a successful future.”

Girls Court provides gender-specific programs and services that more effectively target at-risk and delinquent girls.

Girls Court works on a strength-based model to develop healthy relationships among the girls and their families, return the girls to school or appropriate educational programs, and introduce the participants to employment education and other opportunities in the community.

For more information on the Girls Court program visit the Hawaii State Judiciary website at: http://bit.ly/1ng6ACk Second Circuit’s Own Recognized for Making a Difference in the Community

Second Circuit Chief Judge Joseph Cardoza was selected as a recipient of the Maui News’ 2015 “People Who

Made a Difference Awards.” Judge Cardoza was praised as a visionary leader, as well as a kind, compassionate, giving man—both in and out of the courtroom.

More than 40 nominations were submitted by members of the public in October and November. Nominations were reviewed by the newspaper staff, and five recipients were selected. The Maui News announced the 2015 award recipients in a special Christmas edition tabloid published on December 25, 2015.

AmeriCorps Advocate Magdalena Bajon, a volunteer who runs the Maui Self-Help Center through the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, was also selected for this prestigious award. She was recognized for her commitment to assisting self-represented litigants every week and for running the Wailuku Self-Help Center for the past three years.

The complete “People Who Made a Difference” insert is available online at: http://issuu.com/mauinews/docs/people_who_made_a_difference/1?e=6038 825/32200071 (Subscription to the Maui News is required for viewing.)

The “People Who Made a Difference Awards” has been a holiday tradition of the Maui News since 1994.

Over the past 21 years, more than 200 Maui County residents, organizations, and groups have received the award.

Congratulations to both Chief Judge Cardoza and Magdalena Bajon for this esteemed recognition, and thank you for your service to the people of Maui County.

Appraisers & Auctioneers ! Specializing in Personal Property ! Jewelry & Antiques ! Appraisals for Estate & Insurance ! Estate Auctions

Lipton, Inc. Serving Hawaii since 1931

Jensen Lipton C.A.G.A 1108 Fort street , Suite 16 Honolulu, HI 96813

808.533.4320 jlipton@hawaiiantel.net

March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

19

Update From Hawaii’s Uniform Law Commissioners The current members of Hawaii’s Commission to Promote Uniform Laws, who are Hawaii’s representatives to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (“ULC”), are as follows: Lani Ewart 547-5600 lewart@goodsill.com Peter Hamasaki 529-7300 hamasaki@m4law.com Elizabeth Kent 352-2776 meetingexpectationshawaii@gmail.com Kevin Sumida 366-2600 ksumida@hawaiilaw411.com Ken Takayama 542-3659 ktakayama13@gmail.com Bob Toyofuku 524-4155 toyofuku@hiadvocates.com A revised version of the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (“UFADAA”) has been introduced in the 2016 legislative session. There were actually four different bills covering UFADAA in the 2015 session, and they will carry over to the 2016 session.

However, UFADAA was revised in 2015 by the ULC to address various questions and issues raised by interested parties.

UFADAA extends the traditional power of a fiduciary to include management of a person’s digital assets. The act allows a fiduciary to manage digital property, like 20 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

computer files, web domains, and virtual currency, but restricts the fiduciary’s access to electronic communications such as email, text messages, and social media accounts, unless the original user consented in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record. Commissioners Peter Hamasaki and Ken Takayama will be the lead contacts for UFADAA. The Uniform Trust Code is under study by committees of trust and estate counsel in Hawaii and may be introduced sometime in the near future. The act, which provides a comprehensive model for codifying various laws relating to trusts, has already been adopted in 31 states and will be introduced in several additional states in 2016.

The ULC website at www.uniformlaws.org has more information about all of the above mentioned acts, as well as acts that are being studied, acts currently in the drafting process, and those that have been completed. You may also contact any of Hawaii’s commissioners with questions or comments about any uniform acts or the ULC. Finally, we sadly report that Commissioner Hiroshi Sakai passed away on October 9, 2015. He served as a commissioner with the ULC for 50 years and participated on many drafting committees, including the Uniform Condominium Act, the Uniform Consumer Debt Counseling Act, the Uniform Real Estate Time Share Act and the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. Sakai was well respected by commissioners from other states, served as Vice President of the ULC from 1986 to 1989, and was a key member of the Hawaii delegation. Hawaii’s remaining commissioners mourn his loss, but we are grateful for the opportunity to have served with him and watched his commitment to working on laws that are intended to improve the lives of others.

Notice for Reappointment of Incumbent Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang The current term of office of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang expires on December 19, 2016. The United States District Court is required by law to establish a panel of citizens to consider the reappointments of magistrate judges to a new eightyear term.

The duties of a magistrate judge in this court include the following: (1) conduct preliminary proceedings in criminal cases; (2) trial and disposition of misdemeanor cases; (3) conduct various pretrial matters and evidentiary proceedings on delegation from a district judge; and (4) trial and disposition of civil cases upon consent of the litigants.

Comments from members of the bar and the public are invited as to whether Magistrate Judge Kevin S. C. Chang should be recommended by the panel for reappointment by the court and should be directed to the Clerk of Court, Sue Beitia by email at <clerkofcourt@hid.uscourts.gov> or comments may be mailed to: Sue Beitia U.S. District Court 300 Ala Moana Blvd. C-338 Honolulu, HI 96850 Comments must be received by May 2, 2016.

Per Diem Judge Applications The District Court and District Family Court of the First Circuit is accepting applications from attorneys interested in serving as Per Diem District Judges. Application forms are available at: (1) the Hookele Counter on the first floor of the Circuit Court Building at 777 Punchbowl Street; (2) the District Court Concierge Kiosk on the Plaza level of the District Court Building at 1111 Alakea Street, Honolulu (or at the District Court Service Center located on the third floor when the Concierge Kiosk is closed); (3) the Hookele Counter on the first floor of the Kapolei Courthouse located at 4675 Kapolei Parkway, Kapolei; (4) online at http://www.courts.state.hi.us - Job Opportunities. An original and three copies of completed applications may be mailed or hand-delivered to: Committee to Evaluate Qualifications of Per Diem Judges ATTN: Judge R. Mark Browning 4675 Kapolei Parkway Honolulu, HI 96707 An additional copy must be mailed or hand delivered directly to the Chief Justice, Aliiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.

Applications for consideration may be submitted up to April 8, 2016.

Per diem judges are part-time judges appointed by the Chief Justice on an â&#x20AC;&#x153;as needed basisâ&#x20AC;? to preside in the District Court or Family Court.

During their term of service, a per diem judge may still engage in the private practice of law. Compensation is received only for the days which actual service is rendered based on the monthly rate of compensation paid to a district court judge.

After receiving instructions and filling out the application form, nominees are interviewed by the Committee to Evaluate Qualifications of Per Diem Judges and upon selection, an order of appointment must be filed. After they take the oath of office, the per diem judge is ready for assignments.

Would you like a second opinion? mel r. hertz, MBA, CFP 808-522-0100

237 Kuumele Place #8, Kailua, HI 96734 melhertz@theretirementcoach.org Securities and advisory services offered through the Strategic Financial Alliance, Inc. (SFA), member FINRA and SIPC, mel r. hertz is a registered representative and an investment adviser representative of SFA, which is otherwise unaffiliated with the retirement coach. Supervising Office (678) 954-4000

March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

21

Lateral Hiring of Attorneys –

Positives With P it f a l ls

22 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

by Lennes N. Omuro The lateral hiring of attorneys from other law firms or solo private practitioners often provides significant opportunities for firms to grow and provide better service to their clients. The lateral hiring of attorneys, however, may also come with significant business, liability, ethical, and other practical issues and risks.1 Unsuccessful lateral hires can be very expensive. Lawyers who claim to have a large book of business but fail to bring clients to the firm obviously may cost the firm many thousands of dollars in direct and indirect costs. Perhaps just as importantly, however, unsuccessful lateral hires can also harm a firm’s culture and cause discontent among firm attorneys who may not get along with the new hire or who may begin to question their own place within the firm.

Accordingly, when recruiting lateral hires it is important to do due diligence on the potential lateral hire including conducting careful and thoughtful interviews, performing internet research on the lawyer, independently verifying resume information, review-

ing representative samples of the lawyer’s work, careful consideration of whatever relationships the lawyer may already have with members of the firm, and the lawyer’s involvement in the community.

Be wary of lawyers who change firms often or who cannot provide a realistic business plan or model. Firms should also consider their previous successful lateral hires and the attributes or qualities of those lawyers that made them such a welcome and valuable addition to the firm. Does the potential lateral hire have those same attributes or qualities?

In addition to the quality of the potential lateral hire, firms should also consider the quality of the lawyer’s clients, especially the clients that the lawyer may bring to the firm. Are these the type of clients that the firm wants to represent? Are the potential new clients financially stable and able to pay their bills? Are they engaged in risky activities such as raising money from other third parties and do they seek to use the firm’s name and resources in their business?

Have they sued other lawyers?

Law firms should not hesitate to let lateral hires know that some of their clients should remain with the old law firm. Remember too that if a lateral hire later decides to again change firms, the firm may be stuck with a problem client who came with the lateral hire. On the other hand, if a lateral hire has good clients, the lateral hire should be careful about soliciting clients before resigning from his or her old firm and it is especially risky for the new firm to be involved in such solicitation. Firms should also exercise care to avoid obtaining confidential information during the hiring process.

Potential conflicts of interest should also be fully evaluated and satisfactorily

resolved before the lateral hire starts to work at the new firm. ABA Model Rule 1.10(a) permits the screening of a lateral hire to avoid the imputation of a conflict of interest, at least with respect to former client conflicts arising under ABA Model Rule 1.9(a) or (b), even if the lawyer was involved in the matter at issue while at the old firm. Hawaii has not, however, adopted this version of ABA Model Rule 1.10(a). Instead, Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (“HRPC”), Rule 1.10(c) only allows for screening to avoid imputation of a conflict of interest if the lateral hire (1) did not participate in the matter creating the conflict when working at the old firm and has no confidential infor mation regarding the matter, (2) the lateral hire is timely screened and is apportioned no part of the fee from the matter, and (3) written notice is promptly given to the affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliance with this rule. If these conditions are not met, then disqualification can only be avoided by obtaining a waiver of the conflict from the affected client.2 Keep in mind that under HRPC Rule 1.10(c)(1), not only must the lateral hire have not worked on the matter giving rise to the conflict but he or she must also have no confidential information about the matter. So if the lawyer has obtained confidential information through casual or informal discussion about the matter with others in the firm, screening cannot be implemented to avoid the imputation of a conflict of interest to the new firm.

In addition, comment 6 to Rule 24 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

1.10 makes it clear that the restriction against the lawyer receiving an the apportionment of the fee from the matter prohibits the lawyer from receiving compensation directly related to the matter for which the lawyer is disqualified, but it does not prohibit the lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior written agreement. This same comment also reminds lawyers that courts may impose more stringent requirements in ruling upon motions to disqualify a lawyer from pending litigation and that the requirements for screening procedures are stated in Rule 1.0(l).3

Moreover, notice to the affected former client should be given as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent, and it should include a description of the former representation at issue as well as the screening procedures being employed.4 Therefore, when hiring a lawyer from another law firm, a conflict check should be run to determine whether the potential lateral hire must be screened from any matters or if a waiver of a conflict of interest must be obtained. The conflict check should not only be based on information provided by the potential lateral hire but also on a survey of matters handled by the new firm in which

the lawyer’s old firm is or may have represented an adverse party. After all, the potential hire may not know about all of the matters that other attorneys in the old firm have worked on or are working on that may give rise to the need for screening or a conflict waiver.

Also keep in mind that when a lawyer actively involved in a representation decides to seek employment with the adverse firm, the lawyer may have a duty to seek the client’s consent to explore such employment possibilities.

ABA Formal Opinion 96-400 concludes that a lawyer in such circumstances must obtain client consent to engage in employment negotiations “ordinarily before he participates in a substantive discussion of his experience, clients or business potential” or the terms of employment or association with the new firm.

The opinion also indicates that the prospective employer law firm may also have a conflict that the firm may need to resolve with its client if hiring the lawyer would disqualify or place a material limitation on the firm’s representation of the client. Likewise, the Restatement Third, The Law Governing Lawyers, Section 25, Comment d, provides that if the discussion of employment has become concrete and the interest in such employment is mutual, then the lawyer must promptly inform the client and, absent client consent, the lawyer must terminate all further discussions or withdraw from representing the client.

Finally, even after the lawyer is hired, firms should take active steps to

Dispute Prevention &Resolution, Inc. Keith W. Hunter, President/CEO

Resolving Disputes Locally, Professionally and Effectively for

Hawaii’s Business and Legal Communities

Wide Range of ADR Services Mediation Arbitration Partnering Facilitation Special Master Services

The Honorable Joel August (Ret.) The Honorable Riki May Amano (Ret.) The Honorable Patrick Border (Ret.) Justice James Duffy, Jr. (Ret.) Chief Justice Richard P. Guy (Ret.) The Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo (Ret.) The Honorable Douglas Ige (Ret.) The Honorable Thomas Kaulukukui, Jr. (Ret.) Paul Alston, Esq. Thomas Angelo, Esq. Paul Aoki, Esq. Sidney Ayabe, Esq. Roy Bell, III, Esq. Mark Bennett, Esq. Daniel Bent, Esq. Mark Bernstein, Esq. James Bidwell, Esq. Sherry Broder, Esq. Edmund Burke, Esq. Ellen Godbey Carson, Esq. Thomas Cestare, Esq. Louis L.C. Chang, Esq. Kevin Chee, Esq. Wesley H. H. Ching, Esq. Gerald Clay, Esq.

Experienced Professional Case Management Over 30 Years of ADR Experience Locally Owned & Managed Hawaii’s Most Extensive Facilities Local Financial Accountability Straight-Forward, Reasonable Fees

ADR Judicial Panel

The Honorable Walter Kirimitsu (Ret.) The Honorable Victoria Marks (Ret.) The Honorable E. John McConnell (Ret.) The Honorable Marie Milks (Ret.) Chief Justice Ronald Moon (Ret.) The Honorable Gail Nakatani (Ret.) The Honorable Shackley Raffetto (Ret.)

A Distinguished Panel of Neutrals

Charles Crumpton, Esq. Erik Eike, Esq. Kale Feldman, Esq. David Franzel, Esq. Michael Gibson, Esq. John Gillmor, Esq. Gary Grimmer, Esq. Jeffrey Griswold, Esq. Joel Halverson, Esq. Diane Hastert, Esq. C. Michael Heihre, Esq. Jerry M. Hiatt, Esq. Roy Hughes, Esq. Susan Ichinose, Esq. John Jubinsky, Esq. Bert Kobayashi, Jr., Esq. Dennis Krueger, Esq.

Peter Adler, Ph.D Joseph H. Goldcamp III, Esq./CPA James K. Hoenig, Esq./Ph.D (Psych.)

Justice Mario Ramil (Ret.) The Honorable Sandra Simms (Ret.) The Honorable Elizabeth Strance (Ret.) The Honorable Michael Town (Ret.) The Honorable Leonard Wolf (Ret.) The Honorable Francis Yamashita (Ret.) The Honorable Patrick K.S.L. Yim (Ret.)

Kenneth Kupchak, Esq. Ralph LaFountaine, Esq. James Lawhn, Esq. William Lee, Esq. David Louie, Esq. Colin Love, Esq. Ivan Lui Kwan, Esq. Amrita Mallik, Esq. Kenneth Marcus, Esq. Michael Marr, Esq. Michael Marsh, Esq. Bruce McEwan, PhD Ann Misura, Esq. G. Richard Morry, Esq. Philip Nerney, Esq. Patricia Kim Park, Esq. James Paul, Esq.

ADR Specialists

Keith W. Hunter, CEO of DPR Lance Inouye, Esq.

Roger Peters, Esq. Jeff Portnoy, Esq. Stefan Reinke, Esq. Seth Reiss, Esq. Kenneth Ross, Esq. Frank Rothschild, Esq. Robert Rowland, Esq. Michael Shane, Esq. Craig Shikuma, Esq. David Simons, Esq. Yaroslav Sochynsky, Esq. Michael Tom, Esq. Alan Van Etten, Esq. Andrew Wilson, Esq. Robert Wrede, Esq. Randall Wulff, Esq. Gary M. Yokoyama, Esq. Stacey Wong James Reinhardt, AIA, CSI

1003 Bishop St., Pauahi Tower, Suite 1155, Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 523-1234 • Fax: (808) 599-9100 www.dprhawaii.com • Email: keithhunter@dprhawaii.com

•28 years aquatic experience •Qualified as an expert in state and federal courts •Aquatic standards and practices •Drowning, diving, boating accidents •Situational analysis •Underwater investigations and videography

Aquatics Consulting Services Contact: Glennon T. Gingo Direct: 808-960-9348 26 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

integrate the lawyer into the firm. Many firms will assign a person or a team of persons to assume responsibility for integrating the lawyer into the firm. This includes not only making sure that the lawyer gets to meet or interact socially with others in the firm, but also that the lawyer gets the support needed to do the work and understands the firm’s policies, procedures and practices.

For example, it is important that the lawyer understands what to do if a problem arises even if the problem relates to work done at the old firm. If the lawyer attempts to address a problem caused by a mistake at the old firm, by performing legal work at the new firm to try to fix the mistake, then the new firm could become exposed to liability if the matter is not handled correctly. Therefore it makes sense not only for members of the new firm to visit with the new lawyer and involve the new lawyer in firm meetings but the new lawyers should understand the firm’s loss prevention practices and protocols. Careful integration of the lawyer into the firm is especially important if the new lawyer is practicing in an area that is new or outside of the firm’s normal practice.

This article does not address every issue that may arise when engaging in the lateral hire of lawyers. Lateral hiring presents many potential benefits to a law firm but firms should carefully review the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct and take steps to minimize the practical risks and costs that may also come with lateral hires. _________________ 1 This article addresses the hiring of attorneys from other law firms or solo practitioners engaged in private practice. For additional issues related to former government officers and employees, or a former judge, arbitrator, mediator or other third party neutral, refer to Rules 1.11 or 1.12 of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.

2 See HRPC. Rule 1.10(d).

3 See also, Comments 9 and 10 to HRPC Rule 1.0(l), which provides:

[9] The purpose of screening is to protect the confidences of the client and assure independent legal counsel acting in the interest of the client. The disqualified lawyer should acknowledge the obligation not to communicate with any of the other lawyers in the firm with respect to the matter. Similarly, other lawyers in the firm who are working on the matter should be informed that the screening is in place and that they may not communicate with the disqualified lawyer with respect to the matter. Additional screening measures that are appropriate for the particular matter will depend on the circumstances.

To implement, reinforce, and remind all affected lawyers of the presence of the screening, it may be appropriate for the firm to undertake such procedures as a written pledge by the screened lawyer to avoid any communication with other firm personnel and any contact with any firm files or other materials relating to the matter, written notice and instructions to all other firm personnel forbidding any communication related to the screened matter with the disqualified lawyer, denial of access by the screened lawyer to firm files or other materials relating to the matter, and periodic reminders of the screen to the screened lawyer and all other firm personnel. See Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12 of these Rules.

[10] To be effective, screening measures must be implemented as soon as practical after a lawyer or law firm knows or reasonably should know that there is a need for screening.

4 Comment 6 to HRPC Rule 1.10 provides: [6] Where the conditions of paragraph (c) are met, imputation is removed, and consent to the new representation is not required. Lawyers should be aware, however, that courts may impose more stringent obligations in ruling upon motions to disqualify a lawyer from pending litigation. Requirements for screening procedures are stated in Rule 1.0(l) of these Rules. Paragraph (c)(2) does not prohibit the screened lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement, but that lawyer may not receive compensation directly related to the matter in which the lawyer is disqualified. Notice, including a description of the screened lawyer’s prior representation and of the screening procedures employed, generally should be given as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent.

Lennes N. Omuro is a partner at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel and a member of its litigation section. He has also served as his firm’s Professional Responsibility Committee Chairperson and as in-firm Counsel.

The William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii (“UH”) at Manoa (“Law School”) received a commitment for a $1 million leadership gift from the Davis Levin Livingston law firm, launching private fundraising efforts for its new Advocacy and Trial Practice Center and Clinical Building.

After a decade of dreaming and planning, the $7 million overall building project was approved by the state legislature and Board of Regents, and final design work

Clinical Building and New Advocacy and Trial Practice Center at UH Law School Receives

$1 Million Leadership Gift

successful advocacy working for some of the state’s most vulnerable people through a rich array of clinics.

“We are incredibly grateful to Mark Davis and Mike Livingston, and the Davis Levin Livingston firm for their support,” stated UH President David Lassner. “It is critical that we diversify and expand our funding sources, including through philanthropy. This gift is another testament to the growing confidence of the community in the excellence of Hawaii’s university.”

View from Dole Street of new Clinical Building, designed by Group 70 International.

was recently completed. The community legal outreach center – its former working title – is now called the Clinical Building.

The Center has already drawn intense interest from Hawaii’s legal community. This leadership gift launches private fund-raising efforts for the new facility, leveraging existing state and Law School funding.

At its January 28, 2016 meeting, the Board of Regents voted unanimously to approve a list of donor naming opportuni-

Mark Davis, founding partner of Davis L e v i n Livingston, stated: Clinical and trial advocacy education is the life-blood of a lawyer’s training in the adversary system.

The Courtesy David Croxford, Honolulu Magazine Richardson School of Law ties in the new building. has developed an enormous depth in the opportunities it offers to law stuThe Advocacy and Trial Practice dents to develop trial skills and serve Center will be the academic core of the the public interest in pro bono purLaw School’s efforts to teach trial practice suits. Now, with the new Advocacy and advocacy skills to all of its students to and Trial Practice Center, and the get them “practice ready” and to increase addition to the modernized physical the students’ training opportunities to learn March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

27

plant of the Law School, UH is destined to be one of the leading centers for clinical education in the country.

Our firm is excited to be part of this effort, which will preserve and improve the quality of justice our graduates will deliver to our community.

Congratulations to Patricia Case! A proven industry leader who has set record sales in all upscale neighborhoods, Patricia recently joined Coldwell Banker as a Vice President.

"I am very happy at Coldwell, as it is the best firm in Hawaii, with the most advanced systems available to promote my clients' properties on a truly global basis."

Benefits of Scanning with ProImage: X 4DBOOJOH QSJDFT TUBSU BU QFS JNQSFTTJPO 5ZQJDBM TDBO KPCT BWFSBHF CFUXFFO BOE QFS JNQSFTTJPO X Load files GPS $PODPSEBODF 4VNNBUJPO 3FMBUJWJUZ $MFBSXFMM J1SP FUD X 4DBOOJOH QSJDF JODMVEFT load file DPOUBJOJOH CBTJD DPEJOH #FH#BUFT BOE &OE#BUFT 'VSUIFS DPEJOH JF DBQUVSJOH UIF EBUF TVCKFDU BVUIPS FUD DBO CF EPOF BU BO BEEJUJPOBM DPTU X 0WFSOJHIU QSPEVDUJPO TUBGG BWBJMBCMF VOUJM NJEOJHIU BU PVS .FSDIBOU 4USFFU MPDBUJPO (Please call by 3:30 p.m. to schedule overnight work.)

X #JTIPQ 4USFFU MPDBUJPO PQFO PO 4BUVSEBZT B N UP Q N

4 Downtown Locations

0QFO .POEBZ 'SJEBZ B N UJMM Q N 1100 Alakea Street t 'BY

#JTIPQ 4USFFU t 'BY

.FSDIBOU 4USFFU t 'BY

333 Queen Street t 'BY

We also offer: Trial Exhibits, Exhibit Tabs - Alpha & Numeric, Oversize B&W and Color Reproductions, CD/DVD Duplication, Document Labeling, etc.

www.proimagehawaii.com 28 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

In 2013, the Legislature approved a $7 million package for the Clinical Building that included $3.5 million in general obligation bonds backed by the state, and authorization for $3.5 million in revenue bonds to be backed by the Law Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own funding, through a combination of tuition and philanthropy.

The design calls for the two-story Clinical Building on the Ewa side of the existing William S. Richardson School of Law; it will provide dedicated professional training facilities for law students and faculty who serve, one-on-one, some of the people in Hawaii who most need skillful legal assistance while at the same time teaching advocacy and trial practice skills.

Law School Dean Aviam Soifer noted that the new Advocacy and Trial Practice Center focuses the Law Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s longstanding excellence in clinical education and the importance of creating a center of excellence for trial advocacy education.

Dean Soifer stated: The new Advocacy and Trial Practice Center will soon become a reality, in large measure thanks to the vision and generosity of Mark Davis and Michael Livingston and the Davis Levin Livingston Charitable Foundation. They are providing generous leadership with a catalyzing gift of $1 million. Mark and Mike recognize the importance of trial lawyer education and they taught and inspired our students directly for many years. With their help and that of many other leading lawyers and judges, the Richardson Law School is recognized as one of the leading law schools in the country for clinical and trial advocacy education and public service.

Associate Law Dean Denise Antolini said: â&#x20AC;&#x153;This will be a new state-of-the-art home for clinical programs and for practical legal training for our law students who are eager to contribute to the community.â&#x20AC;?

Antolini added, â&#x20AC;&#x153;We started work on the Project Development Report to plan

the expansion back in 2004, with the overall planning phase approved and funded by the legislature in 2006. We are fortunate that the legislature supported this vital part of our vision, and we are greatly encouraged by the generous support of the Davis Levin Livingston Charitable Foundation. This exciting project dedicated to clinical education and trial advocacy training will be constructed starting in November 2016.”

The Law School recently was singled out nationally for its high quality and innovative clinics that provide public service while offering students a chance to flex their legal muscles by working with real clients.

The new Advocacy and Trial Practice Center also supports the Law School’s ongoing commitment to pro bono activities. As part of the Law School curriculum, students are required to provide 60 pro bono hours of legal service.

The Law School was one of the first law schools in the nation to require pro bono service as a graduation requirement, and it certainly was the first - and still probably the only law school - to have the requirement requested by students.

“Our school already serves many of the state’s individuals who are most in need of legal help,” said Soifer, “and this new clinic and trial practice center will help us focus our efforts and provide even greater reach while at the same time fulfilling an important academic objective as we train skilled advocates who are imbued with the vision of service to our community. That was key to the founding of our Law School by Chief Justice William S. Richardson and his allies.”

Those who already receive law student help include the elderly, veterans, troubled and incarcerated youth, and

families living at or near poverty levels.

The Elder Law Clinic alone has provided more than 10,000 hours of free legal help to seniors in the more than 25 years since it moved from the Legal Aid Society to the Law School under the leadership of Professor James Pietsch.

The Advocacy and Trial Practice Center in the Clinical Building will take advantage of two new large multi-purpose and flexible conference and meeting rooms, four dedicated interview rooms, three work preparation zones, and a number of faculty offices. In keeping with the overall design and ambience of the Law School, the Clinical Building will have a practical design echoing the open, collegial plan of the existing Law School buildings.

The dedicated clinical space also will assist the Law School with maintaining national accreditation standards, which are increasingly focused on practical legal training skills.

Davis Levin Livingston was founded in 1980. The founding partners, Mark Davis and Mike Livingston, both came from civil rights and public interest backgrounds. The firm does exclusively trial work, mostly from the plaintiffs’ side and continues to actively handle civil rights and public interest cases. In recent years, the lawyers at the firm formed the Davis Levin Livingston Charitable Foundation that receives a portion of the firm’s profits every year to support access to justice issues and other charitable pursuits. The Foundation underwrites the Davis Levin First Amendment Conference. Both Davis and Livingston teach at the Law School and have been active in its development. The firm’s lawyers include: Loretta Sheehan, Matthew Winter, Clare Connors, Thomas Otake, Erin Davis, and Anne Williams.

JERRY M. HIATT MEDIATOR, ARBITRATOR, AND SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES Involved in hundreds of mediations and arbitrations over 38 years of practice

"Providing creative and highly focused dispute resolution services” Best Lawyers in America in 8 areas including Mediation and Arbitration.

Named Best Lawyer of the Year for Mediation (2014)

Available through

Dispute Prevention & Resolution 1003 Bishop Street, Pauahi Tower, Suite 1155 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813

(808) 523-1234 jh@hiattlaw.com References at www.hiattlaw.com

March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

29

OFF THE RECORD Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing announced that John-Anderson L. Meyer has been elected a Stockholder/Director effective immediately. Additionally, the firm added Sarah Chadwick Cocke as Of Counsel, Timothy Partelow as Associate, and Keali’i Lopez as Director of Government Relations.

Meyer’s law practice focuses in the areas of commercial litigation, personal injury defense, insurance defense, healthcare, medical malpractice defense, legal malpractice, and constitutional and civil rights litigation. He has been an Of Counsel attorney at the firm since 2013, and prior to that, he was a partner at the law firm Robbins Meyer Rufo.

Cocke concentrates on corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, securities law compliance and general corporate law. Prior to joining Alston Hunt, she was Assistant General Counsel at The PFM Group, a group of SEC-registered financial and investment advisory businesses serving state and local governments and non-profit organizations nationwide. Prior to that, she was an attorney at law firms in Philadelphia and Houston where she represented publicly held and privately owned businesses in mergers and acquisitions, equity and debt securities offerings, financings and commercial transactions.

Partelow recently clerked for the Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Alexa D.M. Fujise. He graduated with a Juris Doctor and Asia-Pacific Legal Studies certificate from the William S. Richardson School of Law. He has provided legal translations for a number of entities both in the United States and Mainland China in the areas of intellectual property and land title law. Partelow is professionally fluent in Mandarin Chinese and able to serve clients in both Chinese and English.

Prior to joining Alston Hunt, Lopez was the Director of Commerce and 30 March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

Consumer Affairs. Immediately before her appointment as director, she was serving as President and CEO of Olelo Community Media where she oversaw the expansion of community media centers to seven public schools. She also worked in the Distance Education Program at Kamehameha Schools and with the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission in the development of a statewide telecommunications infrastructure.

Andrew G. Odell has joined Carlsmith Ball’s Kailua-Kona office as a member of its Real Estate, Land Use and Hospitality and Environmental practice groups.

Prior to joining Carlsmith Ball, he was an associate at Cades Schutte LLP, where he represented clients in real property litigation. He earned his law degree from the William S. Richardson School of Law in 2010.

The Hawaii Women Lawyers officers and board of directors for 2015 to 2016 are: Natalie Younoszai, President; Shan Wirt, VicePresident/President-Elect; Erin Kobayashi, Secretary; Kristine Yoo, Treasurer; Tricia Nakamatsu, Immediate Past President. The directors are: Lori Amano, Cathy Betts, Jacquelyn Esser, Jill Hasegawa, Mihoko Ito, Nalani Kaina, Aimee Lum, Erica Osterkamp, Jennifer Rose, Shellie Park-Hoapili, Laurie Tochiki, Melissa Uhl, and the student representatives are: Stephanie Batzer, Chantrelle Waialae, Erin Anding, Christina Lizzi, and Michele Nakata.

At its January meeting, the Hawaii Bankruptcy Bar Association Board of Directors elected Elizabeth A. Kane to serve as President for 2016, succeeding Johnathan C. Bolton.

Barbara L. Franklin serves as Vice President; Allison A. Ito as Treasurer; and Jean Christensen as Secretary. In addition to the new offi-

cers, the Board consists of returning directors Teri-Ann Nagata, Lars Peterson, Rick Abelmann, and Lisa Volquardsen; and new director Bridget G. Morgan. Directors serve staggered two-year terms.

Lars Peterson recently joined and became a name member of Abelmann Peterson Rollins LLLC, and continues his practice in the areas of bankruptcy and related litigation. He was previously a prinicipal at Law Office of Lars Peterson LLLC. News for “Off the Record”

Please send in information about movement within the bar, about elections to various boards, awards, and other news to any one of the editors on the editorial board, Carol K. Muranaka at <carol.k.muranaka@gmail.com> or Cynthia M. Johiro at <Cynthia.

M.Johiro@hawaii.gov>.

Articles Wanted

If you are interested in writing either a short or long article of general interest to members of the bar, please send your submissions to Ed Kemper at edracers@aol.com; Cynthia M. Johiro at cynthia.m.johiro@hawaii.gov; or Carol K. Muranaka at carol.k.muranaka @gmail.com; or to any of the volunteer editors on the editorial board. All submitted articles should be of significance to and of interest or concern to members of the Hawaii legal community. A short article is between four and eight pages, double-spaced, approximately 500 to 1,500 words.

The longer law-review type articles are published in a special issue. The Cades Foundation has been gracious and generous in funding this special issue. These articles exceed 4,500 words.

The Hawaii Bar Journal reserves the right to edit or not publish submitted material.

ATTORNEY WANTED CENTRAL PACIFIC BANK'S Legal Department seeks to hire an in-house attorney. Details concerning this Legal Counsel position can be found on the Bank's website. Please apply online via the Bank's website.

ESTABLISHED DOWNTOWN LAW FIRM Is seeking a litigation associate attorney.

3-6 years litigation experience preferred.

Hawaii Bar Admission required; Excellent benefits; Salary commensurate with experience.

Please submit resume, writing samples and salary requirements in confidence to: Recruiting Committee/HR Case Lombardi & Pettit, A Law Corporation 737 Bishop Street, Suite 2600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Email: hrcoordinator@caselombardi.com

DROWNING & TOUR BOAT SAFETY EXPERT Former Hawaii ocean lifeguard and tour boat captain Patrick Durkin. 30 plus years in Hawaii. Many local attorney references. www.aquaticexpert.com. 808.651.SURF FORENSIC DOCUMENTS EXAMINATIONS Detection of Forged & Fraudulent Documents.

Identification of Hand-writing. Expert Witness Testimony. JOSEY & ASSOCIATES, P.O. Box 22-563, Honolulu, HI. Ph. 808-593-1667.

LEGAL CONSULTING ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE for property transactions. Investigation & hazard evaluation.

Permitting & Compliance. Inclusion Consulting (808)261-4444 www.inclusionhawaii.com LEGAL NURSE CONSULTING Assistance in managing the medical aspects of your case.

LITIGATION ATTORNEY. Seeking associate with 2-3 years court experience and ready to transition into a growing civil litigation practice.

Ex prosecutors and Public Defenders welcome. Qualified candidates must have strong legal research and writing skills.

Submit resume, writing samples and references to hi.lawprof@gmail.com.

AUTO DETAILING IS BILLABLE HOURS coming between you and keeping your car looking nice? Drive into work and park, and by the time you go to lunch your car will be in it’s parking space looking showroom spotless.

Bo’s Auto Detailing, 1142 Bethel St. 782.1526

EXPERT WITNESS AQUATIC SAFETY EXPERT 28 years aquatic Experience. Qualified as an expert in state and federal courts. See our ad on page 56 of the HSBA Directory. Aquatics consulting Service 808-960-9348 www.aquaticsconsulting.com BIG ISLAND Chiropractor / Massage Therapist Specializing in vehicle injuries. SRISD whiplash certification. Available for house calls.

Rober R Holland DC, LMT 808-223-8243

Legal Nurse Consulting, Life Care Planning, & Workers’ Compensation Nurse Case Management. Cynthia L. Fricke, RN, BSN, CCM, CLCP. (808) 253-0232. www.islandlegalnurse.com frickec001@hawaii.rr.com

LEGAL WRITING SPECIALIST

building tenants. Check out our website at www.waiponoinvestment.com or call Lee Miller (S) at (808) 548-3358.

MCCANDLESS BUILDING at 925 Bethel St. Office spaces ranging in size from 297 sf to 343 sf (asking base rent is $1.00 psf).

Current operating expenses are $1.26 psf and include full service janitorial, security, air conditioning, and electricity. Storage space available at reasonable rates. Easy walking distance to courts. Check our website at www.waiponoinvestment.com or call Lee Miller (S) at (808) 548-3358.

UNION PLAZA at 1136 Union Mall. Office spaces from 400 sf to 2,500 sf (asking monthly base rent is $0.70 psf). Current monthly operating expense is $1.20 psf; includes full service janitorial, security, air conditioning and electricity. Conference room available for building tenants. Storage space available at reasonable rates. Easy walking distance to courts, adjacent to US Bankruptcy court. Check our website at www.waiponoinvestment.com or call Lee Miller (S) at (808) 548-3358.

EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY will provide legal

PARALEGAL WANTED

writing services. Motions, memos, complaints,

HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION

appellate briefs, and other writing assign-

(HMSA) is seeking a Litigation Paralegal.

ments.

Reasonable rates. Writing samples,

This position will partner with the Counsel

and references provided on request. Call

and various departments to prevent, miti-

(808) 735-8701 or (808) 227-2141.

gate, manage, resolve and address disputes

OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE

and dispute-related issues arising from all areas of the business (including but not

EXECUTIVE CENTER Newly renovated office

limited to mediations, arbitrations, litiga-

space with dedicated parking. Available now.

tions, internal appeals, investigations, com-

183sf Office with private entrance. Shared

plaints, and settlement negotiations). For

259sf common area. all inclusive $1575/Mo

more information and to apply, go to

265-9741 or rmatthew644@gmail.com

www.hmsa.com/careers

FINANCE FACTORS CENTER at 1164 Bishop St. Beautiful ocean and mountain views available. Office spaces ranging from 523 sf to 3,000 sf (asking base rent is $1.10 psf).

Current full service operating expense is $1.43 psf. Conference room available for

RECRUITING / TEMP STAFFING HiEmployment is Hawaii's best choice for finding top legal talent. Professional recruiting and temp staffing services available.

695-3974. email: info@hi-employment.com

March 2016

HAWAII BAR JOURNAL

31

When the Kailua Angels take the field they understand that teamwork is what it takes to win.

When choosing a winning team for your case, select Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporting.

As the state’s largest court reporting firm, with conference rooms on all major islands, combined with a top litigation team of reporters and office staff, they are well positioned to help make your team a winner!

RALPH ROSENBERG

COURT REPORTERS, INC

Phone 808-524-2090 • Fax 808-524-2596 • 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2460, Honolulu HI 96813 Email: courtreporters@hawaii.rr.com • Website: www.Hawaiicourtreporters.com