December 2010 #2. The Richardson Years.

Authorby Hon. Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

Hawaii Bar Journal

2010.

December 2010 #2.

The Richardson Years

Hawaii State Bar JournalDecember 2010The Richardson Yearsby Hon. Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.As there had been a social and political revolution beginning in the 1950s in Hawai'i, there was to be a judicial revolution as well, a Golden Age of law during the Chief Justice Richardson years. What made it possible for the Richardson courts to issue so many ground breaking decisions (or as CJ liked to say, to "pioneer"), was that the CJ provided a setting in which the court flourished. The CJ was tolerant, respectful, truly humble, and even- handed. His was a personality grounded in the culture of Hawaii. Nurtured by these virtues and a sense of order, open discourse abounded on the court. One hallmark of the Richardson court was separate opinions - dissenting, concurring, and dissenting and concurring opinions.

From 1969-1971, a period roughly encompassing my clerkship, separate opinions were issued in over 25% of the cases. Thus, issues were thoroughly debated, assuring the parties and the public that legal disputes had been extensively examined from more than one point of view. As did the other law clerks, I worked on opinions.(fn1) At our annual gatherings on his birthdays, true to his humble nature, the CJ always said we law clerks were the ones who had "blazed the trail."

As a practicing attorney, I had the opportunity to argue several appeals before the court. The importance of oral advocacy in making the judicial process visible was not lost on the court or the CJ. Nearly every case during this period had the benefit of a face-to-face exchange between the attorneys and the justices.

As a circuit court judge, I sat as a substitute justice on several cases. In the two cases on which I served with the CJ, the CJ would call upon each justice in order of seniority. A substitute justice such as myself would be last, but accorded the same considerate treatment as the other justices. Each would have his or her say without interruption. Oftentimes attention turned to the larger consequences a decision had for the future and to the impact on the uniqueness of our state. Had the public been present, it could not have been prouder of the professionalism of the court nor more confident of the integrity of the judicial process.

Looking back...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT