The Hawaii Supreme Court has approved a request by prominent Honolulu attorney Robert E. Chapman to “resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline” after finding he had committed numerous “egregious violations” of the court’s Rules of Professional Conduct over a five year period.

The court referred to the findings of a preliminary investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) which identified “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

Until recently, Chapman was the managing partner of the law firm of Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & Nervell, which ranks as the 12th largest law firm in the state, according to a listing published early this year by Pacific Business News. He has been licensed in Hawaii since 1980, and specialized in real estate, business litigation, and trusts and wills. However, his name has now been removed from the list of attorneys posted on the firm’s website.

ODC’s investigation was triggered by a complaint filed from the attorney general’s office alleging Chapman had attempted to claim approximately $2,000,000.00 in abandoned property belonging to a former client he had represented in the 1980s, but had never met, and had no contact with over the last 30 years.

On October 21, ODC filed a 37-page petition laying out the findings of its preliminary investigation, and initiating formal disciplinary proceedings against Chapman. Five weeks later, Chapman filed a declaration admitting the allegations were true and requesting to be allowed to resign rather than face formal proceedings that could lead to an order of disbarment.

“I request to resign in lieu of discipline pursuant to Rule 2.14 RSCH because I know that if these matters continue to be prosecuted, I could not successfully defend myself,” Chapman admitted in his declaration.

According to ODC’s recitation of the charges, Chapman represented a client in a civil suit involving a commercial real estate lease. The case was settled at the end of 1988.

ODC said “Chapman has never met nor spoken with” the former client, and has not spoken with her representative since about 1989.

Sometime in late 2015, Chapman became aware the state’s Unclaimed Property Program was holding at least $852,565.19 in cash, and four safe deposit boxes containing other valuables, belonging to his former client. As additional property was itemized, the estimated value grew closer to $2 million.

On November 5, 2015, Chapman went to the public records room at First Circuit Court to look at files from the 1980’s lawsuit, which included several document signed by the former client, and obtain copies of selected records. On the same day, he wrote to an accountant claiming to represent her and her company, and asking to received copies of any files held by the accountant. Chapman made similar requests over to several banks seeking records associated with her accounts, including original applications setting up the accounts.

He also filed a claim with the state for all the property held in the former client’s name.

To support his requests, Chapman provided copies of a power of attorney purportedly signed by the client.

The state repeatedly sought additional evidence that the long-missing client was even still alive. That was a key point, because a power of attorney is no longer valid after the death of the principal. Despite the repeated demands for additional documentation, such as a current government-issued photo ID of his supposed client, Chapman never complied.

A forensic document examiner contracted by the state in 2019 “concluded that Power of Attorney documents were forgeries created using publicly available court documents” from the earlier 1980s litigation.

Investigators finally located Chapman’s former client living in Taiwan, where she was interviewed on November 7, 2019.

She “stated that she did not know who Chapman was, had never met him, that she did not authorize Chapman to represent her in any personal financial matters, and that she did not sign the Power of Attorney” that he had been displaying while trying to gain control over her unclaimed property.

Chapmann’s resignation becomes effective 30 days after the entry date of the court’s order, which was filed on December 6.

In his declaration, a copy of which was filed with the Supreme Court, Chapman wrote: “I understand that while this Declaration may be a matter of public record, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.14(c), it shall not be used in any other proceeding except upon order of the supreme court or as otherwise allowed by the disciplinary rules.”