I was looking at the coverage about Gov. Lingle’s nomination of a new Supreme Court chief justice, a decision that will influence the direction of Hawaii courts for as much as the next 20 years.
The Star-Advertiser’s first day story focused on the selection process, some general background on Lingle’s choice, Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Katherine Leonard, and a few reactions. A follow-up story today looks at the Senate confirmation process, against a few reactions.
A KHON2 report looked pretty much like a regurgitated press release.
The only thing I’ve seen about Leonard’s actual judicial performance and views was a review of Leonard’s decisions from the legal blog, Inversecondemnation.com.
It noted that Supreme Court Justices Acoba and Duffy staked out strong positions against two decisions authored by Leonard, which, according to Inversecondemnation.com, “might indicate a continuation of the often interesting splits of opinions between Justice Acoba and the other members of the Court.”
On the other hand, it also noted:
We could not find any cases in which Judge Leonard staked out a position different from her fellow panel members by filing a dissenting or concurring opinion, but that is not particularly unusual for the ICA.
And Judge Leonard is credited with “clear writing and analysis in her work product,” like a good thing all around.
In light of several of the sweeping decisions of the Hawaii Supreme Court in recent years, including the application of environmental requirements to the Hawaii Superferry and Turtle Bay Resort, I’m keen to know how Justice Leonard is likely to impact this train of decisions.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An update: a commenter on the original blog post relayed a 2009 case where Judge Leonard and Judge Foley formed a two-judge majority (with Judge Foley authoring the opinion and Judge Leonard filing a separate concurring opinion). The Supreme Court overturned the decision. It involved a technical question of of what constitutes an “original judgment” that could be extended, but the case was about the Marcos gold, so it was an interesting fact pattern.
http://tinyurl.com/29xc5wm
I had the same thought (re the incomplete reporting) although my question was what kind of work she did before her appointment to the bench (e.g. government, criminal [and whether prosecutorial or defense] contract/corporate)- that as much as anything, I’ve found, gives an indication of temperment.
This strikes me as not unlike Elena Kagan’s career path whereby adherence to a stated idea or opinion is not in the best interests of the advancement of said career. Perhaps this also makes a good case for public money supporting community journalism, for the sake of our common interest in knowing how these people might actually adjudicate our public policies. Oh right, that’s socialism…gasp!
She’s a Richardson grad, so former profs are close by, but whether they’d comment critically is a different question. (The school looks good for having one of its grads get this post.) And anyway, how smart isn’t the key question here.
But wasn’t it reported she was editor-in-chief of the law review in her day? The masthead would give a list of people, many still in town I’m guessing, who worked below her in an management position. Granted, that was way-back-when and as a student, but it might show some hint to her likely leadership style. And polling across the group should be more reliable than just connecting with her old buddies from back in the day.
Kate practiced at Carlsmith Ball LLP after getting out of WSR and is married to one of the environmental law partners (Ian Sandison) at that venerable oldline Bishop Street firm (it claims to the oldest in the islands, tracking its start to the partnership between Carl Smith and his daughter in Hilo during territorial days). Carlsmith Ball, a fairly large firm with offices on the Big Island, Maui, California, Guam and the Marianas, boasts clients including large local banks (i.e., First Hawaiian Bank, Bank of Hawaii in prior years) and other entities (Campbell Estate and its successor corporate entity, various Japanese investment firms when Stan Mukai, Andy Ichiki and Frank Mukai practiced with the firm). I always had the impression that it’s litigation department was not as strong as other Bishop Street firms– it had a bunch of lawyers spinning off in the 1980s and 1990s from its civil trial lawyers (i.e., lawyers that helped form Bays Deaver et al., Greeley Walker et al., Kiefer Oshima et al., Winer Meheula & Devens, some lawyers at McCorriston Miho Miller Mukai). Of course, that also meant that an ambitious and smart lawyer (and Kate Leonard has a reputation as both) could move up quicker at Carlsmith Ball in the litigation area than at other firms where you would remain (and learn) behind experienced trial lawyers. Litigation is still not a big emphasis at the firm. Perhaps her WSR classmates could lend some light on how she was viewed in school and since entering practice.