Case Notes

• Publication year: 2020

CASE NOTES

Hawaii Supreme Court

Administrative

In re Sanctions Against Partington and McPherson, SCWC-18-0000301, March 5, 2020, (McKenna, J. with Wilson, J., dissenting). This case concerned whether the ICA abused its discretion by (1) sanctioning attorneys Robert Patrick McPherson ("McPherson") and Earl A. Partington ("Partington") (sometimes collectively referred to as "Counsel") each in the amount of $50.00 based on Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure ("HRAP") Rule 51 (2010) ("sanctions orders") and by denying Counsel's motion to reconsider the sanctions orders; and (2) whether the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") was authorized to thereafter send letters to Counsel indicating it was administratively disposing of the matter and that the sanctions orders could be used as evidence of aggravation in any future disciplinary proceedings. The Hawaii Supreme Court held (1) that the ICA did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on Counsel and denying the motion for reconsideration; (2) but that the ODC was without authority to treat the sanctions orders as administrative dispositions that might be used in the future as evidence of a pattern of conduct in aggravation.

Wilson, J., concurred and dissented. Wilson, J. stated that at issue was the ICA's finding that counsel did not have good cause for their failure to file an opening brief by the July 9, 2018 deadline set by the ICA—nor good cause for their failure to request an extension of the filing deadline. Two days after the deadline, counsel explained in their July 11, 2018 Amended Statement of Jurisdiction that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Specifically, counsel noted that the opening brief was not filed because "[w]e expected this court to issue an order dismissing this appeal and remanding to the district court for entry of judgment. Because of this, we did not file the opening brief as that would have been a meaningless act." While it may have been better practice to perform the technical task of requesting an extension of time to file the opening brief rather than inform the ICA two days after the deadline that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal, there was nonetheless a sound basis upon which to conclude that such a request for an extension would be a hollow exercise requiring additional and unnecessary consideration by the ICA as to whether an extension of time should be granted. A request for additional time to file an opening brief for an appeal that could not be considered by the court would lack merit. Accordingly, the imposition of sanctions upon Partington and McPherson was an abuse of discretion. In all other respects, Wilson, J. concurred with the decision of the Majority.

Arbitration

Yamamoto v. Chee, No. SCWC-16-0000260, March 2, 2020, (McKenna, J., with Recktenwald, CJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This case concerned whether attorney Donna H. Yamamoto ("Yamamoto") was required to arbitrate claims against Tom Chee Watts Degele-Mathews & Yoshida, LLP (the "Law Firm" or "Partnership") and Law Firm Partner David W.H. Chee ("Chee") (collectively, "Defendants") contained in her August 27, 2015 complaint filed in the circuit court. When Ya-mamoto, a founding partner of the Law Firm, left the Partnership, she handed Chee a personal check made payable to the Law Firm to repay a 401(k) loan. Chee allegedly knew that the 401(k) loan had already been repaid from Ya-mamoto's Partnership capital account but did not inform Yamamoto. When Yamamoto later demanded that Defendants return the funds from her personal check, Defendants refused. After Ya-mamoto filed suit, on December 16, 2015, Defendants moved to compel arbitration of Yamamoto's claims ("motion to compel"). Defendants asserted that the agreement founding the Partnership (the "Partnership Agreement"), signed by Yamamoto, required the arbitration of any disputes "in connection with" that agreement. The circuit court granted Defendants' motion to compel, concluding Yamamoto's claims arose out of the Partnership Agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause applied. Additionally, the circuit court concluded Defendants had provided appropriate notice to initiate the arbitration under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 658A-9. The ICA affirmed the circuit court, concluding Defendants had provided adequate notice and that Yamamoto's...