Two hearings are scheduled this week that could determine whether the two lead attorneys for former Honolulu business owner, Michael J. Miske Jr., will be able to continue representing him in the pending federal criminal case.

Prosecutors are seeking to disqualify both Thomas Otake and Lynn Panagakos, alleging each of the attorneys has significant conflicts that could compromise the case because, according to the government, they may be considered essential witnesses to certain crimes Miske is charged with.

Their removal from the case would be a major blow not just to Miske, but to other defendants whose attorneys have relied on Panagakos’ knowledge of the voluminous evidence in the case to assist their defense efforts. Both were retained by Miske in 2017, three years before Miske and co-defendants were originally indicted, and have a combined 11-years represesenting him in this matter.

The first hearing is scheduled Wednesday morning, February 8, on a government motion asking Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield to reconsider his order denying Otake’s earlier attempt to withdraw from the Miske case due to what Otake himself continues to view as “a serious conflict of interest.”

Prosecutors say that they will appeal to Federal Judge Derrick Watson if Mansfield declines to change his ruling and leaves Otake in place as lead trial counsel.

This hearing was moved forward so that it’s outcome would be known before a second hearing scheduled for Friday morning in Watson’s courtroom. This second hearing will consider a government motion to remove both Panagakos and Otake due to a conflict stemming from their role in soliciting and handling two character reference letters that the government alleges are fraudulent. The creation of these fraudulent letters is the basis for two counts of obstruction of justice against Miske that were added in a third superseding indictment in December.

Although prosecutors have repeatedly said the attorneys apparently were unaware that the letters were fakes, they will create a serious conflict.

Panagakos strongly opposed the government’s motion, and both attorney say they believe there are ways to mitigate the impact of this alleged conflict without removing them from the case.

One approach would be to spin off the two obstruction of justice charges into a separate case, thereby avoiding the possibility either or both attorneys would be called as witnesses.

But prosecutors said the fraud involving the character reference letters is part and parcel of the overarching racketeering conspiracy charge that would remain even if those charges were severed from the main case.

Both the motion to disqualify the attorneys, and the separate motion to sever the obstruction charges, will be considered during Friday’s hearing.