I’m trying to understand the debate over the qualifications of Katherine Leonard to be named Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court.
It’s risky for the Hawaii Bar Association to rate her as unqualified. Certainly, being on the wrong side of a chief justice who could be on the job for two decades is not something you rush out and embrace because of the legitimate fear of retaliation.
Did you catch Larry Geller’s listing of job responsibilities of the CJ?
It makes very clear that the powers and responsibilities of the Chief Justice, and presumably the qualifications, are far different and more complex than those of an Intermediate Court judge. Geller’s excellent list is based on a Legislative Reference Bureau report prepared for Sen. Les Ihara.
Hence the debate.
I don’t pretend to have a lot of insider knowledge about this situation, but we should probably be concerned, given what is a significant split in the legal community. These are certainly red flags to be heeded.
Remember that yesterday’s Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee hearing is available to review online in either video or MP3 audio formats.
I finally found the testimony presented on Leonard’s nomination, tucked down at the bottom of the page displaying documents from this special legislative session.
I have the impression that Leonard, prior to her appointment to the ICA, was a relatively unknown member of the legal community. Her work experience is limited to a single firm that is known primarily for its business law rather than its litigation practice, and I’m told her clients included a relatively narrow list of businesses, banks, and wealthy individuals. Although she litigated civil cases in private practice, she had not served as head of the firm’s litigation section.
A lawyer friend explained to me that the chief justice, as the effective head of the judicial branch of government and the bar, has to command respect among different segments of the legal community. Lingle’s nominee was, until her appointment to the Intermediate Court two and a half years ago, relatively unknown. Today, I’m told, she does not command respect in the legal community at large.
I’m glad to see that Senator Taniguchi is cautious in his approach to the nomination, expressing concerns about her ability to lead the judiciary.
Of course, there are big legal guns supporting Leonard. Former law partners Bill McCorriston, Robert Klein, and Mark Bennett, now Lingle’s AG, have been vocal backers. However, their attacks on the Hawaii Bar Association and its recommendation process are seen by many as out of order.
Clearly, we all need a lot more information before this nomination moves forward.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the Bar had recommended Leonard, there would be no attacks from Lingle about its secrecy.
Check out which firm Bennett will be going to once he leaves the administration. That ought to tell you something.
I don’t know Leonard at all but Ian is right. There is a difference between being a part of a management team in a company and being its CEO. It’s not any different in the judiciary.
Someone can be a very competent judge but may not be an able administrator.
Where’s Mark going, Charles? I hadnt heard yet where is he landing. I do know he is eager to return to the private sector, like many of the cabinet members are already doing. They are all simply exhausted and probably more than a little disgusted. My limited dealings with him have been challenging, to say the least.
As for the legal community, I imagine that they are all more than a little weary about who will be their next CJ. The current one is a pain in their collective asses. They too are exhausted and not about to be chained up with what they may perceive as another potential disaster, not without a good fight, at least.
That said, I would love to see a caucasian woman at the helm. Just as it rocked and woke up the Hawaii state legislature, I think Leonard would be just the dose of medicine that would do all the culture of the Judiciary a bit of good.
But thats probably exactly why Leonard’s not going to get in, now isnt it? But sssshhhh, we cant say THAT.
Or can we?
Is there reason to believe Mark Bennett will not return where he came from, the McCorriston firm?
If there is a reason, it could be quickly summed up in one word: Plueger.
“lawyer friend explained to me that the chief justice, as the effective head of the judicial branch of government and the bar, has to command respect among different segments of the legal community.”
those are intellectually dishonest partisan talking points
go take a look at the testimony of the Public Defender Jack Tonaki — he provides a nice description about how this is a classic “glass ceiling”
as far as an “unqualified” rating by the bar — take a look at CJ Moons comments to the American Judicature Society in Dec 09 — where he points out that the Judicial Selection Commission is constitutionally mandated to provide only qualified names
keep in mind that a secret bar committee has now deemed a sitting judge with an unblemished record unqualified (no matter how they qualify their statement)
pretend this state was run by Republicans — and finally a Democrat comes to power and appoints an accomplished minority female to be CJ — imagine the outrage if the shoe was on the other foot
The criticism of the HSBA process seems valid to this average Joe.
The Consitutionally mandated Judicial Selection Committee already vetted this candidate and deemend her “qualified.”
Why then, the afternoon before the confirmation hearing, would the HSBA – which is simply a private association – issue its “opinion” that she is unqualified, and otherwise give no reasons?
I don’t necessarily disagree with your main point but I do vehemently disgree with your factually incorrect assertion that the HSBA is “simply a private association.” Thanx to Frank Padgett, we now have a “unified” bar and all lawyers — who once were supervised directly by the Supreme Court — were forced to join the HSBA which was at that time (early 90’s) the private club of Bishop Street lawyers. It has taken going on 20 years to redirect that entity to recognize that its conscripted membership is more diverse than ever before. As for the particulars of the process, read the testimony of HSBA President Hugh Jones (a deputy attorney general).
If the nominee was a man I doubt anyone would blink at the utterly unremarkable record of the person appointed to a remarkably important position. Should we be afraid to say that because she is a woman? A UH grad? In the end, it probably doesn’t matter. The constitution doesn’t require the best candidate be appointed, merely a qualified one. Most decent lawyers could do the job. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t wish for more. Or be accused of being sexist, racist, whatever because we do.
Consider if her appointment is rejected by the State Senate. Judge Leonard will have to recuse herself in the future from any ICA cases involving the current HSBA Board Members (being as that the HSBA recommendation would be a primary reason for her rejection).
Your lawyer friend is so right on this one. Too much of the ongoing debate has focused on Ms. Leonard’s judicial credentials but competence as a jurist is only one of the many qualifications needed to become the Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court. The chief executive of the Judiciary must also have credentials as leader, an administrator, and politician. When you consider that the head of the Judicial Branch must be able to inspire and lead his/her subordinates, engage in politics with the leaders of the other branches of government, while building or creating a foundation for the courts’ future. When you consider all that the CJ must be and do legal scholarship and judicial temperament do not seem to be as important qualifications for a Chief Justice as they would be for an Associate Justice. Ms. Leonard appears to be an excellent judge and is probably capable of writing great opinions for the court but I have heard very little about her leadership abilities or about her vision for the Judiciary nor have I been given any reason to have confidence in her ability to engage in politics with the leaders in the other branches of government. I agree with you that the jury is still out on Leonard.
Written testimony has been available on the Capitol website since yesterday. From the home page, click on “2010 First Special Session,” and then scroll all the way down.
I partially agree with the criticism directed at the HSBA. I understand that the bar needs to protect the identities of those who have submitted correspondance in opposition to Ms. Leonard’s candicay as CJ, but why can’t the bar provide general reasons as to why it deemed her “unqualified”.
For me this is the burning question. Does Leonard’s gender actually create a divide between advocates and opponents? More specifically, would she be receiving the same support or opposition if she were a man.
Ian, I share your agnosticism in this one, assuming all kinds of games at play, but I’m also inclined to agree with you that this much smoke may have at least some fire at the source.
More importantly, I don’t think that we should accept the mantra there is a lack of information about her. “I have the impression that Leonard, prior to her appointment to the ICA, was a relatively unknown member of the legal community.”
Rather, we have a lack of information coming out yet.
+ She is a Richardson grad – that is she had 100 classmates in a pretty tight setting, most of whom are probably still in the state. She was one of the most prominent in the class — Editor in Chief of the Law Review – that is working for the journal in her second year and running it (directing other students in her class and the one that follows) in her third year. PLENTY of people you could find around town would have formed impressions then and remained acquainted with her since. (And a news reporter’s quick trip to any law library in the state would find the masthead for those two years.)
+ She litigated for 20+ years in a major Honolulu firm. How many opposing counsel? Also, it’d be really interesting to know the impressions of the countless support staff who served her in those years. We can assume she was excellent in pleasing her superiors, (the big guns supporting her), but how did she treat the folk who worked for her? Given the managerial role of the CJ over the entire judiciary’s staff (not just the judges), if I were judiciary staff, I’d probably be wondering about this right now.
+ Ditto for the ICA. Presumably current ICA staff would not want to be on record with any negative opinions, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t information the Senators ought to know.
Anyway, I can’t buy that people in the legal community are driving their opposition owing to not knowing. Whether they’re driving it from fair or unfair views, gender- or race-biased or unbiased, that’s where the mix becomes too thick to read, but more info is good. Kudos to you and Larry Geller for being on this. Hopefully, it’s being read somewhere.
People forget that when Justice Leonard was nominated for the ICA, it was only after Governor Lingle has nominated 2 others before her and only after Randal Lee’s nomination was rejected by the Senate. She was then passsed over for Chief Justice of the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Further, when finally nominated as an associate justice to the ICA, Judge Leonard was NOT given the “highly qualified” rating from the Bar association, which caused so much controversy that the Bar ended up doing away with “qualified” and “highly qualified” rankings. The associate justice position in the ICA is nothing remotely like the Chief Justice position of the supreme court. It is also worth noting that, when nominated, she did not hold any professional rating distinction, such as “AV rated” or a “Best Lawyer” or a “SuperLawyer.” Now, just more than 2 years later and being a third choice by the Governor for the lowest appellate court position, she is being nominated for the most powerful and important position in the judiciary.
To provide ‘gravitas’, her supporters and the press claim she authored 155 appellate opinions. This is not true. She authored or co-authored 24. The rest – 131 – were one or two line summary dispositions, short memoranda opinion without detail, or in perhaps a limited few unpublished and therefore not of any value.
Also, people might remember the coverage a few months ago that the Judicial Selection Commission was unable to get enough applicants to fulfill its role of submitting the required number of names for nomination. People assumed with such highly regarded and respected names as Supreme Court Associate Justice Recktenwald and ICA Chief Justice Nakamura, both appointed to their positions by Governor Lingle, there was no point in applying. There is a reason why Governor Lingle and her allies are pushing someone of the limited stature and experience of Justice Leanord. I am glad someone is asking.
Oh, forget it already. The writing is on the wall. I seriously feel bad for Ms. Leonard, she most certainly does not deserve whats happening to her, but this sure does seem to be lost cause. Time to minimize the damage to her, to us. Withdraw. Move on.
I highly doubt the next name is going to be Recktenwald either.
LISA GINOZA FOR CJ!!
Come on, everyone, lets start a viral campaign!
@Hipoli – If Leonard is not confirmed (and I agree with you that it is looking grim), the next nominee must come from the list provided to the Governor. Ginoza is not on that list.
I know Kate Leonard and her current husband Ian Sandison. I like Ian. I respect Kate’s keen intellect and ability as a litigator and a lawyer. They were both partners at the oldest (and, at times, largest) law firm based in the state, with partners that included Matt Matsunaga and Ed Case at one time. She arrived at Carlsmith at a time after litigators from the firm had spun off into various smaller firms (Bays Deaver, Greeley Walker, and the former Kiefer Oshima firms, and later a small team with the Goodsill spin-off that became the might McCorriston law firm) so it had fewer high powered courtroom lawyers but had space for ambitious and talented young attorneys who wanted to move up quickly, and Kate did.
As one of the other posters notes, the State Constitution creates a Judicial Selection Commission to foster merit selection of judges — the assumption being that anyone on a list submitted to the nominating authority (the Chief Justice for the District Court and the Governor for the Circuit and the Appellate Courts) is qualified. The Senate still gets to advise and consent but what is it that they’re to consider about a Judge (I still remember then-Senator Matt Matsunaga asking nominee James “Duke” Aiona about the latter’s infamous temper and competitiveness on the Lawyers’ League basketball court and how that related to proper judicial temperment). The local bar has been a fraternity that only rarely has risen above the usual go along to get along mentality (i.e., and so Jim Bickerton gets celebrated for going after his former Goodsill colleague Sharon Himeno when she was appointed to the Hawaii Supreme Court as the possible first female Justice in recent times).
I’ve seen Clyde Namuo (before his retirement), and Rick Keller and Walter Ozawa handling the day to day administrative duties of the Judiciary so you really just need a leader to provide direction (Kate’s one comment about having no agenda is the only question mark in my mind– other than using technology to make access to justice easier, what else does she think is important?). Is Kate the hale, let’s get a beer after work pal? Never thought so, but she’s a good lawyer from one of the toughest firms to become a partner, she’s worked on Access to Justice issues with the American Judicature Society, she served as a leader with the Boy Scouts. What’s wrong with being a mother as well as a good lawyer?
It would be nice to know how the Board voted but only Hugh Jones testified.
The current HSBA Board includes Deputy Attorney General Hugh Jones (President), who would have voted only if the Board had deadlocked. Louise K.Y. Ing is President-elect, a partner at former Bar President Paul Alston’s firm. The other board members are Carol Muranaka, Craig P. Wagnild (Bays Deaver firm), Ronette Kawakami (longtime deputy Public Defender), Nadine Ando (Bickerton Dang firm, formerly w/ McCorriston and w/ Carlsmith Ball), Steven Chow (Pacific Law Group — part of the old Fujiyama Duffy firm), Robert D. Harris (Sierra Club), William Harrison (a criminal defense attorney), Geraldine Hasegawa (Dep. Attorney General from the Big Island), Carol Kitaoka (Big Island Dep. Prosecutor), Derek Kobayashi (Schlack Ito Lockwood– a spin off from venerable Goodsill Anderson), Christine Kubota (Damon Key), Gregory Markham (Chee & Markham), Gerald Matsunaga (Kauai), ALIKA L. PIPER
(Klevansky Piper Van Etten),Kenneth Robbins (plaintiffs’ lawyer), Gordon Walter Stewart (Maui solo practice), Suzanne Terada, CALVIN E. YOUNG
(Ayabe Chong Nishimoto Sia & Nakamura).
Of the Board members, perhaps Nadine Ando was still at Carlsmith when Kate Leonard and Ian Sandison were summer associates or new partners. I don’t think any of the other board members hailed from her law firm. Perhaps they litigated against her, and like Mark Bennett, got played like a drum in court.
Can anyone say why chief justices are never promoted from other current justices, but added from without as a new justice? Doesn’t that seem … wrong?
They usually are. CJ Richardson is the only one of the last three that went directly from Lt. Gov. to CJ. Moon and Lum spent a few years each as Associate Justices before being elevated to CJ.
Does anyone remember the controversial senate hearings over a judicial appointment a few years ago where a female lawyer testified against the male appointee? I don’t remember if the controversy surrounded sexist behavior but the appointee claimed the opposite, so someone was lying.
Senator Hee chaired the judiciary committee at the time.
I bring this up because Kate Leonard was in the forefront of the lobbyists pushing the Senate to confirm the controversial appointee. Granted there were lots of lawyers lobbying the senate, but her passion supporting someone another woman put her career on the line to testify against, stood out to me at the time.
The guy was confirmed as a justice, I cannot remember the name, sorry.
The confirmation hearing your referring to was for Glenn Kim to the First Circuit. The female attorney you also allude to was Lynne McGivern, who is a very respected family law attorney at Ashford & Wriston and, if I’m not mistaken, was the president of Hawaii Women Lawyers at that time. To set the record straight, she was subpoenaed, and if I recall correctly, everything she said about Judge Kim was in response to the committee’s questions.
Despite being vilified by many for her comments, there were a great number of attorneys that appreciated what she said about Judge Kim.
she was not subpoenaed randomly.
you state my point more clearly then i did.
mcgivern put her career out there and was vilified by the legal community for her comments. Leonard was one who discounted her testimony while pushing for confirmation of the nominee, who stepped around or denied the testimony.