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.
Talk to the court employees who have interacted with her, and I think you’ll get an idea of who she is, at least you’d get an idea of how she treats people she considers beneath her.
Must have been Clarence Thomas. Either Thomas or Anita Hill was lying.
Oh, wait a minute. That was SCOTUS.
😉
on the secret action of the HSBA — take a look at the The Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 8.2. JUDICIAL OFFICIALS.
A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.
COMMENT:
[1] Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for appointment to judicial office. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
[2] When a lawyer seeks judicial office, the lawyer should be bound by applicable limitations on political activity.
[3] To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.
_____________________
now how is the public to know whether this committee acted fairly or conversely — recklessly — without knowing the reasons for their statement
and note the word “candid” in the comment section — was their statement about the sitting judge really candid?
I spent an hour reading all the testimonies in favor of Kate Leonard. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, all love her because she’s a tough cookie with their Punahou boys in scouts. Co-workers love her because she’s “head-strong”, “strong-willed” and “particular.” When I worked with her when she was a law clerk, we called it “pompous”, “arrogant” and “anal.” Gov. Lingle passed over many qualified women for judgeship in her two terms as governor but now claims a legacy in nominating an unqualified, inexperienced woman to be CJ. Woe to anyone who wrote against her if she becomes CJ because of her vindictiveness.
Here is the last thought from me on this topic. In the events leading up to the HSBA’s decision, it is my understanding that Ms. Leonard was interviewed by the HSBA board prior to deeming her “unqualified”. Is it reasonable for me to assume that this interview provided her with an opportunity to respond to statements opposing her confirmation as CJ?
I have heard supporters of Ms. Leonard point to the fact that the testimony submitted to JGO was overwhelmingly supportive. The fact is that most of us will never know how many individuals sent statements to the HSBA opposing Ms. Leonard’s confirmation knowing their identities would be held in confidence, nor will we ever know what was said during that interview.
Additionally, if we cannot give value to the decisions made by an organization that oversees the qualifications of professionals statewide, why have we relied on such decisions in the past? The governor and attorney general seem to rely on the HSBA’s opinions only when it supports the confirmation of their nominees. A recent example is the confirmation of Ed Kubo earlier this year.
Interesting JGO vote: 4-1 to recommend against confirmation (former Senator cum Lt. Gov. candidate Bobby Bunda resigned to run so he’s not participating). Dwight Takamine, a lawyer, voted with the majority even though he has close ties to the ILWU (I understand the union sent in a letter supporting Kate). Gabbard, who took exception to the HSBA Board’s “not qualified” rating of the possible first Samoan judge for the Circuit Court nevertheless seems to agree with the HSBA recommendation on the first woman CJ. The writing seems to be on the wall that Lingle will have to make another pick– I could be wrong but with Bunda and Gary Hooser resigned from office, Kate needs a majority of the Senators present tomorrow to be confirmed (as little as 9 Senators if only the minimum quorum of 17 is mustered)– I don’t think she needs 13 votes (or over half of the 25 seats allowed for the Senate). I have a feeling she’s going down hard.
Ian, there seems to be a common thread running through the recent editorial on the environmental council and the troubles of kate leonard. The environmental council membership consists of spoiled rotten crybabies who are a political pawn for its former director of superferry infamy – who is likely behind the current council’s troubles in retribution for bennet not approving a 3rd term for her. Well Kate’s husband Ian Sandison was just appointed to the environmental council. Coincidence? I think not!
What do we learn from all this?
Many in our community have isolated themselves from politics and learn to live far removed any public involvement.
The wisdom of such a life choice has been solidly reinforced today.