Just a bit more about the charges made by Trevor Ozawa concerning what he described as disqualifying conflicts on the part of a majority of the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The Code of Judicial Conduct does have quite a bit to say about situations in which a judge should consider recusing themselves in order to avoid any situation “in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned.”

Ozawa blasted three members of the Hawaii Supreme Court over the weekend for failing to recuse themselves despite having what he described as serious conflicts. Specifically, Ozawa implied three justices–Pollack, McKenna, and Wilson–would be biased in favor of his opponent, Tommy Waters, because the latter had been a member of the state’s Judicial Selection Commission at the time they were nominated to serve on the high court.

Indeed, Rule 2-11(d) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct specifically addresses the issue of conflict involving a judge and a member of the Judicial Selection Commission. But two important caveats need to be pointed out. First, it specifically applies to judges in a “trial court,” which would exclude justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Further, the rule is limited to a circumstance in which a commissioner is to appear before a judge as a party or attorney at the same time the judge has an active application for retention or appointment pending before the commission. In no case would it preclude a judge from involvement in a case with a former member of the Judicial Selection Commission who might have participated years previously in reviewing the judge’s application to the commission.

The rule:

(d) A judge of the trial courts may recuse himself or herself from a case if the judge has, or anticipates having within the next 60 days, a petition for retention or an application for judicial office pending before the Judicial Selection Commission, and the judge knows* that a witness, party, or counsel for a party in the proceeding is a Commissioner on the Judicial Selection Commission whose term of office does not expire before the anticipated date of consideration of the judge’s petition or application.

It’s clear that Ozawa’s attempt to attack the court’s majority based on Tommy Water’s prior service on the Judicial Selection Commission was groundless.

Ozawa would have been well advised to at least review the Rules of Judicial Conduct before making such inflammatory accusations about members of the court.