Civil Beat reporter Christina Jedra was quick to report another government motion seeking a judicial review of “conflicts of interest with respect to attorney Thomas M. Otake,” this time involving the case of the city’s former top civil attorney, Donna Leong; Roy Amemiya, former Honolulu managing director; and Max Sword, former chair of the Honolulu Police Commission.
Jedra’s story was posted on Tuesday, February 14, the same day the motion was filed in Honolulu’s federal court (“Feds Move To Disqualify Attorney In Honolulu Corruption Case“).
The motion came just four days after Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield granted a motion filed by Otake, allowing the attorney to withdraw from representation of accused racketeering boss Michael J. Miske, Jr., because of conflicts involving at least two former clients who are expected to be called as witnesses at Miske’s trial, and separate questions raised by a meeting with Miske and a top lieutenant after federal agents in California broke up an attempted cocaine buy, leaving Miske without both an estimated $300,000 in cash and the 20+pounds of cocaine.
In a statement, Otake said his client [Leong] is innocent and wants him to represent her.
“I believe this alleged conflict has been manufactured in an attempt to kick me off the case,” he said.
“I take my ethical obligations very seriously and would withdraw if I thought there was an unresolvable issue,” he added. “However, I will not give in to improper attempts by the government and others to gain advantage in a case by interfering with someone’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of their choice.”
According to the government’s motion, “Otake appears to be professionally and financially enmeshed with a significant government witness, Loretta Sheehan,” as “they are partners in the same law firm: Davis Levin Livingston.”
Further, in a sworn deposition attached to the motion, Sheehan “reveals she sought and received legal counsel from the attorneys at Davis Levin Livingston about her duties on the Commission. Sheehan regarded the attorneys at the firm as her counsel, loyal to her, whose duties of loyalty enabled her to be ‘free to discuss
matters that I would otherwise be required to keep confidential.’”
Do these “entanglements” create legal issues sufficient to warrant Otake’s removal from this case?
Otake says they do not, which is different from his recognition of a significant conflict in the Miske case.
What is clear, however, is that Honolulu is socially and politically a small town, and there aren’t that many players in the top echelons of experience defense attorneys, making conflicts difficult to avoid.
And even the government’s motion hints it may be possible to craft a suitable waiver agreement so long as it “placed on the record and fleshed out in a public forum.”
The deadline for Otake’s response to the government’s motion is March 10, and any reply by prosecutors must be filed by March 17, well in advance of the scheduled March 31 court hearing.
US Motion for Inquiry into conflicts of interest by Ian Lind on Scribd
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian, speaking of close knit legal community, weren’t Otake and our US Attorney members of the Davis firm at the same time?
You are correct. Perhaps why this case is being prosecuted by Michael Wheat from California and not by the Hawaii US Attorney’s Office.
More likely, it’s because Wheat’s crew was assigned to the Kealoha prosecution from the beginning, the Hawaii branch of the US Attorney’s Office having copious egg on its face for being hornswoggled earlier into prosecuting the Kealohas’ mailbox frame-up and all. Let’s remember that the current case stems directly from that fiasco.
The reportage is quick to come when the case is not a Miske case. There are no street gangsters in the Leong case. Maybe reporters are afraid of being targeted by the various gangsters around the Miske case — as was the Waianae Small Boat Harbormaster.
The idea that Leong, Sword and Amemiya
are exempt as not being “Gangsters” is ridiculous.
The Alleged White Collar Government enablers of crime are far more dangerous and corrupt than simple “Street Gangsters”, having taken an Oath of Office. When such groups align and coordinate crime it’s the worst example of RICO – Racketeering Influenced Corupt Organization.
Donna Leong is not going to chop anybody’s head off. Lindsey Kinney says that he will. Donna Leong is more socially dangerous but less personally dangerous. Reporters are concerned about their personal safety.
This is the best you have, JKS, at intimating intimidation?
I am not aware of any reporter who has been directly threatened, but off hand ‘threats’ like ‘you don’t know who you are dealing with’ are a always part of the background noise. And of course we are all aware of the threats to the Waianae Small Boat Harbormaster, the Hawaii Country Club and at least one Windward shore property owner from the ‘Occupied Army’ group. A similar phenomenon started to play itself out during Broken Trust days–reporters avoiding the story assignment–but then the threats were more career-oriented, less physical. In both cases there was/is an ‘atmosphere’ not a a specific threat, but that’s all it takes. An ‘atmosphere’ of fear is more effective than a direct individual threat for obvious reasons. One of the ‘obvious reasons’ is that the distinction is lost on many people so the threat has deniability, as you are showing right now.