Woo vs. Harmon - Witness David Fairbanks

Cronin, Fried, Sekiya, Kokina & Fairbanks
841 Bishop Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, HI 96813

A court-appointed master for the Kamehameha Schools is recommending a one-year extension for trustee Robert Kihune, whose term ends next month.

In a 117-page report filed with the state Probate Court last month, attorney David Fairbanks also recommended a one-year extension for trustee Diane Plotts and two-year extensions for board members Douglas Ing and Nainoa Thompson.

"The potential for loss of substantial institutional knowledge, wisdom, continuity, momentum and even stability is great, and the threats of an interruption in the present, established path of governance, a less-than-smooth transition ... and interruption of important, newly implemented programs are very real," Fairbanks wrote.

Kihune, a retired Navy vice admiral, will step down June 30 after having served on Kamehameha School's board since 2000.

A Probate Court-appointed trustee screening committee recently named three finalists to replace Kihune. They included state Department of Hawaiian Homes Lands Chairman Micah Kane, state Community Development Authority Executive Director Anthony Ching and former Kamehameha Schools executive and ex-DHHL Chairman Ray Soon.

Deputy Attorney General Hugh Jones, whose office serves as the legal guardian for the estate, had no comment, saying he has not yet completed his review of Fairbanks' recommendations.

A trust spokesman also had no comment but said the estate will file a response to Fairbanks' recommendations with the Probate Court shortly.

Kamehameha Schools, which was established by the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, is a nonprofit charitable trust that educates Hawaiian children.

It is one of the nation's largest charities and is Hawai'i's largest private landowner, with more than 360,000 acres.

In addition to extending current trustees' terms, Fairbanks also recommended that future board members receive a 10-year term.

Currently, all five trustees serve five-year terms and are eligible for up to two terms. Thompson's term ends next year, Plotts' tenure ends in 2011 and Ing's term ends 2012.

Fairbanks said he was satisfied with the progress made by Kamehameha CEO Dee Jay Mailer and her management team but expressed concern about continuity within Kamehameha's boardroom in light of the recent financial challenges faced by the trust.

His report noted that the value of the trust's endowment dropped by 20.4 percent from $9.44 billion on June 30, 2008, to $7.36 billion on Dec. 31, 2008, as a result of the global financial downturn and the national economy.

(Catbird note: Not to mention the greed, corruption and mismanagement of the current Kamehameha Schools’ trustees and management who they now want to EXTEND a couple of years ... so they can lose another $2 or $3 billion???)

"The recent dramatic downturn in the economy, significant losses in investments, the decline in the real estate market with attendant reductions in revenues and lower values, and their potential adverse impact upon the trust's educational programs including outreach programs, make it critical that the transition to an essentially brand new board of trustees be as smooth as possible," he said.

NEW DISCOVERY (08-04-08): UNDISCLOSED CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST BETWEEN JUDGE KEVIN CHANG; JUDGE COLLEEN HIRAI; THE FORMER BISHOP ESTATE TRUSTEES (DEFENDANTS IN HARMON’S RICO LAWSUIT); THE COURT-APPOINTED MEDIATORS IN EQUITY 2048 (DAVID FAIRBANKS AND JAMES DUFFY); FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; XL INSURANCE COMPANY; ATTORNEY GENERAL EARL ANZAI; DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HUGH JONES, STEVEN GUTTMAN, AND OTHERS:

The terms: Dickie Wong's attorney says the agreement resolves pending action against the ex-trustees

The significance: A settlement of the suit would avoid a costly trial scheduled next month

The attorney general`s office has agreed to settle its multimillion dollar lawsuit against the five former trustees of the Kamehameha Schools, according to a lawyer for former trustee Richard "Dickie" Wong.

Another person familiar with the settlement talks said, however, that while there is an agreement in principle it may be some time before it is completed.

In a sworn affidavit filed in the Hawaii Supreme Court yesterday, Wong's lawyer Eric Seitz said he has been informed that the attorney general`s office reached a "global settlement" on Aug. 4 with ex-board members Wong, Henry Peters, Gerard Jervis, Oswald Stender and Lokelani Lindsey that resolves the pending probate, tax and civil litigation against the former trustees.

The plan, which requires approval from the state Probate Court, represents a major milestone in the three-year controversy that has dogged the $6 billion charitable trust. If approved, the deal would avert a costly, one-year trial that is scheduled to begin Sept. 18. Details of the proposed deal remain under seal but Seitz, who represents Wong in the criminal actions brought by the state, said some of the attorney general`s civil claims against the former trustees will be covered by the estate`s $25 million insurance policy with Federal Insurance Co.

It is not clear whether the former trustees will be personally liable for any of the surcharges sought by the attorney general`s office. Seitz added that the insurance company will not cover the outstanding legal bills for the criminal proceedings against his client and Peters, who were indicted by an Oahu grand jury on theft charges. The criminal theft charges have been overturned by Circuit Judge Michael Town, but the state is appealing those decisions. Seitz, who is owed about $20,000 in legal fees for his work in Wong's criminal case, criticized the proposed settlement, saying it uses the insurance company's resources to pay for the civil cases at the expense of the criminal cases involving former trustees Wong and Peters. Until now, the insurance policy had been covering Wong's and Peters' criminal defense costs.

"It's not only unfair but it's an outrage, because it takes away ... the criminal protection that he's entitled to," Seitz said.

Seitz' affidavit was in response to a request by the attorney general's office for records relating to Federal Insurance's payments for Wong's legal costs, a subject of the state's surcharge suit. Seitz argued that state attorneys shouldn't be entitled to the insurance records since they have settled the surcharge suit.

Deputy Attorney General Hugh Jones had no comment on Seitz' affidavit, saying the mediation process is subject to a confidentiality order. Glenn Sato, a lawyer representing Wong in the Probate Court proceedings, also declined comment on Seitz' filing, citing the court's confidentiality order.

An attorney for Stender also had no response, while lawyers for Peters and Jervis could not be reached.

Michael Green, Lindsey's lawyer, took issue with Seitz' affidavit, calling it irresponsible given the sensitivity of the settlement talks.

"The discussions at this point are fragile at best," Green said. "For any lawyer, including Mr. Seitz, to say this case is settled is irresponsible."

A spokesman for the estate said there is no settlement at this time. He declined further comment.

In its lawsuit, the state is seeking multimillion dollar surcharges against the former trustees for allegedly taking excessive compensation, mismanaging the trust's educational programs and incurring more than $200 million in investment losses.

The former trustees have denied wrongdoing, saying the trust is well-run and financially stable.

According to Seitz, the global settlement was reached by all of the parties, including Federal Insurance, during an Aug. 4 closed-door conference with Probate Judge Kevin Chang. Seitz said the plan was placed on the record, making it enforceable.

But others familiar with the talks said that while there may be tentative agreement, there are outstanding issues.

They noted that the attorney general's office and lawyers for the former trustees continue to hold discussions with the court-appointed mediators, David Fairbanks and James Duffy.

Minutes to the Aug. 4 meeting in Chang`s chambers are under a court-ordered seal.

NEW DISCOVERY (07-18-08): Undisclosed professional conflicts of interests with Defendant’s attorney, Bradley Tamm, and attorneys representing parties involved in Harmon’s RICO lawsuit and EQ2048; breach of attorney-client privilege confidentiality rules:

Current members of the Bankruptcy Mediation Panel are listed below. Applications for appointment to the panel will be accepted on a continuing basis.
Ryther L. Barbin, Esq. Louis L. C. Chang, Esq. Robert E. Chapman, Esq. Chuck C. Choi, Esq. Harrison P. Chung, Esq. Charles W. Crumpton, Esq. Nicholas C. Dreher, Esq. James N. Duca, Esq. Don Jeffrey Gelber, Esq. Steven Guttman, Esq. Owen H. Hellekson, Jr., Esq.	Simon Klevansky, Esq. Ronald K. Kotoshirodo, Esq. Colin K. Kurata, Esq. Remy Luria, Esq. Alan J. Ma, Esq. Michael F. Nauyokas, Esq. William J. Plum, Esq. Bradley Tamm, Esq. Susan Tius, Esq. James A. Wagner, Esq. Thomas J. Wong, Esq.
LBR 9019-2. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (a) Purpose and Scope. To facilitate the voluntary resolution of adversary proceedings and contested matters, the Bankruptcy Court is authorized to establish guidelines for court-sponsored Bankruptcy Alternative Dispute Resolution (“BDR”) procedures. This rule does not preclude parties from participating in the alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) procedures implemented under LR 16.11 or in any other ADR process. (b) Program Administration. (1) Bankruptcy Mediation Committee. The court may establish a Bankruptcy Mediation Committee to formulate guidelines for BDR procedures and the selection, training and evaluation of individuals to serve on a Mediator Panel. (2) BDR Administrator. The court may appoint a BDR Administrator to administer the BDR program and to serve as liaison between the court and the Bankruptcy Mediation Committee. (3) Bankruptcy Mediator Panel. The BDR Administrator shall publish and maintain a list of qualified individuals approved by the court to serve as members of a Bankruptcy Mediator Panel. Individuals selected to serve on the panel may be required to provide a minimum amount of service without compensation. (c) Confidentiality. (1) Except as otherwise provided by this rule or applicable law, any and all communications made in connection with any mediation under this rule shall be subject to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (2) Mediators and parties shall not communicate with the court about the substance of any position, offer or other matter in the mediation without the consent of all parties, unless such disclosure is required to enforce a settlement agreement or to provide evidence in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, but only to the extent required to accomplish that purpose. (d) Immunity of Mediators. All persons serving as mediators under this rule shall be deemed to be performing quasi-judicial functions and shall be entitled to all of the privileges, immunities and protections that the applicable law accords to persons serving in such capacity.
12/19/2002

03/30/02

Letter from Harmon to Bradley Tamm re Ch 7 Case 99-04339

www.kycbs.net/Claim-Tamm-3-30-2.htm

www.kycbs.net/Claims-Branch-Dunn-Tamm.htm

04/06/02

Fax from Harmon’s attorney, Bradley Tamm, to Steven Guttman, Matt Tsukazaki, and Susan Tius requesting that these parties “SHOULD ALL COOPERATE IN EXCHANGING SUCH INFORMATION FOR OUR MUTUAL BENEFIT AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR CARRIER’S INTERESTS.” This is indisputable evidence of violation of attorney-client privilege and conspiracy to commit fraud.

www.kycbs.net/Claim-Tamm-4-6-2.pdf

Honolulu mediator Clyde Matsui was among a roomful of lawyers in an antitrust case when a mainland attorney suggested that one reason they were having problems was that Matsui did not know what the lawyer meant when he used the term "oligopoly."

Matsui asked the attorney whether he meant it in the context of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 2, as it was used against railroad companies and later the cigarette industry when six or fewer sellers supply 75 percent of more of the market.

Matsui then told the lawyer he wanted to say three things so they would not get distracted again: First, Hawaii has law books; second, Hawaii will soon get computers.

"And No. 3," Matsui recalls that he told the lawyer, "you condescend to me one more time, you're leaving this process, and it might not be through the door."

Matsui, 60, a lawyer who specialized in civil cases, is regarded in the legal community as one of Hawaii's top mediators and arbitrators who are part of a growing industry to help resolve court cases and avoid costly and oftentimes emotionally draining litigation.

His detractors suggest that he can be too blunt and too impatient, but Matsui has handled hundreds of cases and his track record shows major successes.

Matsui's supporters believe that he is effective because he is bright, does his homework, knows how to close deals and focuses on the critical issues. Some also see similarities with Wallace Fujiyama, a prominent Honolulu lawyer who died in 1994 and was known for his unabashed support of local culture and local people.

"He certainly is a local boy, but, like Wally, he's a very sophisticated local boy," said Honolulu lawyer David Fairbanks, also considered one of the best mediators and arbitrators in town.

"I think he is very loyal to the local practice of law. That's not to say people from the mainland are treated differently or less fairly, but Clyde is mindful of his roots and what we have here."

In a recent interview, Matsui acknowledged that he strongly supports Hawaii's lawyers.

He said he finds some pleasure in deflating egos of mainland attorneys who think they are more worldly and wise than Hawaii lawyers "stuck in the middle of the Pacific with law degrees from correspondence schools."

"I love when they come and I find one opportunity to dissuade them from that notion," Matsui said.

At the same time, though, Matsui said the mainland lawyer in the "oligopoly" anecdote later became the most helpful in getting the case settled.

Fujiyama coached Matsui when he was 10 to 12 and played on a youth baseball team. Matsui said he talked a lot, and Fujiyama gave him the nickname "Lippy." He said during trips to the mainland, Fujiyama would insist that Matsui sit next to him and would talk throughout the flight.

His parents, Jiro and the late Betty Matsui, also were huge influences with their "old school" philosophy. Although the father worked as a state research analyst and his mother as a secretary, the money had to be stretched to support Matsui, his two brothers and his grandparents, all living together in McCully.

Still, the parents, like many of their generation, valued education highly and sacrificed to send Matsui to Iolani School.

"They teach you not to disappoint them, no matter what you do. You don't shame the family in a small community like McCully. I guess through the years, you kind of learn what they taught you is not to disappoint yourself."

Matsui's first major mediation led to the settlement of the bitter dispute between the state and the former Bishop Estate trustees in 2000. Matsui's fellow mediators were David Fairbanks and Jim Duffy, now an associate justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Matsui said he currently has about 14 pending arbitration and mediation cases, including one involving a major Mapunapuna landowner suing the city and state over the constant flooding in the area.

The case reveals a commonsense approach Matsui is known to use in settling cases.

Matsui said the parties agreed to deal with the causes -- the tides, the overflow from Mapunapuna Stream and an abandoned waterline that was not plugged. Once the problems are fixed, they can start figuring out liability and money, Matsui said.

For the landowner, the sublessees will suffer less damage, and the property will be worth more, Matsui said. For the city and state, the flooding will end, and the repairs will cap any further liability.

"The whole point is, you put the fix in front of the settlement rather than go mindlessly into the settlement of the case," Matsui said.

Matsui believes that as litigation becomes more expensive, mediation becomes the only "viable alternative."

He recalled that he settled one dispute between a private trust and its lessee, but not before each side spent "several million dollars" in attorneys' fees.

"I firmly believe that (mediation) will be the most important -- and greatly beneficial -- change in American jurisprudence since the early days of common law," he said.

While mediation is a way to save time and money, the parties will still need lawyers.

"I get very irritated when people go for legal services in Hawaii and say, 'Ho, this is a big case. We better get a mainland law firm.'

"To me, the lawyers we have here are exceptional, far better than big-firm lawyers who cannot see the end of the lawsuit and are preoccupied with the fighting."

It was during that "oligopoly" antitrust case, Matsui also recalled, that the mainland lawyers sat at the table, and their Hawaii co-counsels sat behind them along the walls.

He told the group the local counsel should sit at the table and that the mainland lawyers should sit behind them.

When someone took it as a joke and laughed, Matsui told the lawyers he was serious.

"I deal with the (Hawaii lawyers) every day. I deal with you only when you fly into town, and then you fly back to wherever you came from and then I got to deal with (the Hawaii lawyers)," he said.

With their mainland counterparts behind them unable to see their faces, the Hawaii lawyers sat at the table.

After graduating from Hastings College of Law, where he excelled as associate editor of the college's law review, Matsui declined to join Fujiyama's law firm.

Fujiyama, a prominent lawyer, was an outspoken advocate of local values and culture who used to visit Hastings and tell the Hawaii students to return and help the local people.

Matsui said they did not talk for 11 years until a chance meeting in a bar. When Matsui was returning from the restroom, Fujiyama saw him.

The state may have compromised its environmental policy because of pressure from Hawaii Superferry executives who were worried about financing for the interisland ferry project, the state auditor has concluded.

The auditor found that an internal June 2005 deadline imposed by Superferry executives "drove the process" and pushed the state Department of Transportation to bypass an environmental review. The deadline, according to the auditor, was tied to Superferry's agreement with Austal USA to secure financing to pay the Mobile, Ala.-based shipbuilder to construct two high-speed ferries.

The federal Maritime Administration, which approved a $140 million loan guarantee for ferry construction, wanted confirmation that no environmental assessment of harbor improvements would be required because of the risk that environmental concerns could jeopardize port access. But Maritime Administration officials told the auditor they did not set the June 2005 deadline as a condition of the loan guarantee.

"In the end, the state may have compromised its environmental policy in favor of a private company's internal deadline," state auditor Marion Higa concluded. "It remains to be seen whether these decisions will cost the state more than its environmental policy."

The performance audit was required by state lawmakers as part of a law passed in special session last fall that allowed Superferry to resume operations while the state conducts an environmental impact statement. Legal challenges and public protests had halted ferry service after the state Supreme Court ruled in August that the state's decision to exempt $40 million in state harbor improvements from environmental review was in error.

The auditor's main finding was that the June 2005 deadline was not imposed by the federal government, but related to an agreement between Superferry and Austal. The audit questions whether the state did "sufficient due diligence to verify whether the deadline was valid for the reasons Hawaii Superferry Inc. claimed."

John Garibaldi, Superferry's chief executive officer, said yesterday that Superferry has consistently portrayed the June 2005 deadline as necessary for both federal and private equity financing. He described the agreements with the Maritime Administration, Austal USA and primary investors J.F. Lehman & Co. as interrelated.

"They were all dependent upon each other. No one stood on its own," Garibaldi said. "I think that's what we tried to express to people."

Garibaldi declined to comment on other findings in the audit because he had not yet seen a copy.

The auditor's descriptions of the chain of events that led the state to exempt the project from environmental review in February 2005 are similar to reports in The Advertiser in September and January.

The auditor and the newspaper received many of the same documents, which were screened by the Lingle administration for attorney-client privilege and executive privilege before being released. The administration is preparing a privilege log for the auditor and the newspaper to describe the documents that have been withheld. The Advertiser requested the documents under the state's open-records law.

Most significantly, the auditor — like The Advertiser — emphasized a late December 2004 meeting at the governor's office that included the governor's then-chief of staff Bob Awana, department officials, and Superferry executives.

Staff in the department's harbors division had wanted to require a statewide environmental assessment of the project and to get Superferry to install a stern ramp on the vessel to give it more flexibility at Kahului Harbor on Maui. But Superferry executives, according an account by a department staffer, told the state that anything but an exemption was a deal-breaker and that they would not install any ramps.

"Decisions made: We need to pursue EXEMPTION; and HSF will not provide any ramps on vessel," one department staffer told colleagues afterward in an e-mail.

The auditor concluded that department e-mails showed a decision was made at this meeting, although who made the decision is not revealed.

"Current and former department officials and employees who worked on the ferry project were either unable to recall who made the decision at that meeting or chose to invoke executive privilege when asked who directed the team," the auditor found.

The department, in its written response to the audit, rejected any inference that a decision was made at the governor's office directing the department to pursue an exemption. The auditor countered that the department's e-mails about the meeting "are self-explanatory."

"Ultimately, a decision involving the governor's office was made that directed the 'ferry project team' to pursue scenarios that would exempt the ferry harbor work from environmental review," the auditor found.

Awana, who resigned last year, told The Advertiser in January that he had no role in the decision. Barry Fukunaga, who was then the department's deputy director of harbors and is now Gov. Linda Lingle's chief of staff, has said he made the decision in consultation with his construction and engineering staff and then-department director Rod Haraga. The department also consulted with the state Office of Environmental Quality Control and county planning agencies.

Fukunaga told The Advertiser in writing last year that he did not discuss his deliberations or his eventual decision with Lingle, Awana or state Attorney General Mark Bennett.

The audit is also similar to The Advertiser's reporting last September on the Maritime Administration's loan guarantee for Superferry. Maritime Administration officials told the auditor that loan guarantees are typically exempt from environmental review because they just provide financing for ship construction. The vessels typically use port facilities already in place.

Maritime Administration officials told the auditor that harbor improvements for Superferry could have triggered an environmental assessment that could have limited ferry access to ports. So the Maritime Administration added a condition that Superferry provide confirmation that no environmental assessment was required.

"MARAD's position was that it was not willing to finance the construction of any vessel that might be unable to operate because it has no port," the auditor found.

The audit recommends that the Legislature empower a state agency to enforce environmental review laws and require agencies to update exemption lists every five years. The auditor found that the public has little involvement in the exemption process other than the right to file a lawsuit to challenge an exemption.

Higa had complained to lawmakers that she missed a March deadline for a preliminary draft of the audit because of significant delays in obtaining documents from the Lingle administration. Higa repeated those complaints in the audit and said her staff would be preparing a second phase of the audit for a later report.

Higa described the Lingle administration's cooperation as "slow and incomplete, at best." The department called that description "wholly untrue" and said any delays were based on requests by Higa that the attorney general found were "unreasonably broad in scope."

The department chose not to comment on many of Higa's conclusions. Mike Formby, the department's deputy director of harbors, said last night that the administration's wants the opportunity to review the second phase of the audit.

I think what we wanted to do was reserve the right to see the full report, because it's really risky to look at half the report and respond knowing that they're out there still doing field investigation, interviews, reviewing documents," Formby said. "And basically, they look at the response you gave, and they go out and look for a way to rebut your response."

Campaign laws could have
been violated and it could
have lost its tax-exempt status

The documents -- discovered last year in the office of former trust manager Namlyn Snow -- include binders containing detailed logs of the attorneys' contributions to the Ige campaign, as well as photocopies of canceled checks to pay for the contributions.

Each attorney or firm contributed $250, for a total of $1,250. All of the checks were received by the Ige campaign on Aug. 17, 1994, and were deposited together in the campaign's bank account on the following day, suggesting that the contributions were bundled by Bishop Estate representatives.

Trust attorneys familiar with the documents said it was clear that Snow, who died last year, had a part in obtaining the donations.

On Monday, the Star-Bulletin reported that an investigation by the attorney general's office had found that the estate engaged in a massive attempt to influence legislation and direct tens of thousands of dollars to isle politicians during the tenure of previous board members Richard "Dickie" Wong, Henry Peters, Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Jervis and Oswald Stender.

The findings of the attorney general's inquiry, along with documents relating to the law firms' contributions to the Ige campaign, were turned over to the state Campaign Spending Commission last week, which has opened a separate investigation of the trust.

Bob Watada, executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission, also declined to discuss the law firms' contributions to Ige. But speaking generally, Watada said bundling of contributions could be seen as a campaign contribution made under a false name, which is illegal.

Federal law also bars tax-exempt trusts from making campaign contributions or taking part in a political election. Violations could lead to the loss of a charity's tax-exempt status.

The latest disclosure comes as Ige is facing misdemeanor charges for alleged campaign finance abuses. The charges stem from an alleged campaign laundering scheme involving Bishop Estate's architecture and engineering firms. Ige has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is scheduled for next month.

Birney Bervar, Ige's attorney, declined comment on the latest development involving his client's campaign finances.

Attorneys with the Ashford & Wriston and Dwyer Imanaka firms had no response, while Bill Yuen of the Ching Yuen firm said he could not recall the circumstances of the contributions.

Nakamura, who does civil litigation work for the trust at the law firm of Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh, said she remembers purchasing the fund-raiser tickets and attending the event with her parents. Nakamura, who lives in Ige's district, added that she may have purchased the tickets with the assistance of Bishop Estate personnel.

Heihre, formerly known as C. Michael Hare, said his donation to Ige was a personal contribution on his own checking account. But Heihre, a partner in the Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright firm and former chairman of the state Judicial Selection Commission, said he could not recall if he discussed his contribution to Ige with Kamehameha Schools personnel.

Each of the law firms that contributed to the Ige campaign has billed the trust tens of thousands of dollars each year for legal work. Last year, the estate paid the Cades Schutte firm about $1.8 million.

... Since 1987, the year in which the trustees were forced to make public the amount of their fees, they have received in excess of $40 million. Fees paid over the past three years have averaged $900,000 per trustee, per year.

The distracting thing about this piece of the mosaic is that people made responsible for preserving $5 to $10 billion of wealth, and carrying out an educational mission that is as important as it is unique, arguably ought to be highly paid.

We think the more important issue is the credentials of the specific individuals who are being paid these large sums of money. Given the estate's ability to pay big-league compensation, one would expect to find an array of phenomenally talented trustees. Yet somehow, with the exception of Oswald Stender, the Bishop Estate trustees simply don't measure up to the job.

Many people are under the impression that the justices of Hawaii's Supreme Court are legally obligated to select Bishop Estate trustees because that's what the princess put into her will. Not so. Clearly, they don't have to do it. The justices acknowledged as much in 1989 when they refused the request of a woman named Sadie Smith to pick the trustees of her charitable trust.

Acknowledging the obvious impropriety of making trustee selections in their official capacity, the justices tell us they are acting as individuals when they select Bishop Estate trustees. This is a distinction without meaning. To be blunt, it's a dodge.

The reality is that Bishop Estate trustees are selected by five individuals who through no coincidence are also justices of the state Supreme Court. The further reality is that these same five individuals are virtually certain to be called upon to decide cases involving the trustees they select (the estate has been before the Supreme Court at least 18 times in the last 13 years). At a minimum, this creates the appearance of a conflict.

Some people wonder why the justices would stretch logic and judicial ethics to the breaking point just to do something they clearly don't have to do, and then do it poorly.

Can we be blamed for questioning the justices' collective judgment in other areas? After all, if the justices exercise questionable judgment in their individual capacity when selecting trustees, why shouldn't we expect equally questionable decisions in their official capacity? Worse, if selection of trustees is influenced by politics (as we believe it is), why shouldn't the public assume that judicial decisions are equally political?

It is imperative that the Supreme Court enjoy the trust and respect of the entire community. According to Democratic Rep. Ed Case, "The Supreme Court's trustee appointment role has the real potential of undermining and perverting our judicial system, starting with the judicial selection process. Getting out of the Bishop Estate trustee selection business is the single biggest thing the court could do to enhance the court's standing with the public." We agree.

More than 100 years have passed since Mrs. Bishop's death, and if she were here today, she unquestionably would decide some things differently. For example, the princess named five men, who happened to be haole, as the initial trustees of her trust. Does that mean she wanted all future trustees to be of that same make up? Of course not.

In fact, the justices and trustees have themselves occasionally ignored the language of the will -- perhaps with good cause. For example, the will says the schools should be primarily vocational, and only secondarily college preparatory. That's changed. The will also specifically expresses a desire that the schools benefit orphans and others in indigent circumstances, and makes no mention of admissions based on academic ability. Again, the will's instructions have been modified to deal with the demands of the time.

The will specifically provides that the trustees must be "persons of the Protestant religion," and no court case has said that such a requirement is invalid. Yet the current justices of Hawaii's Supreme Court, acting as individuals and not as a court, have indicated that they will ignore the will in this respect when selecting new trustees.

Taking refuge in the literal words of the will is more of an excuse than a reason.

To understand why each member of the court would insist upon doing something that we consider unethical, it helps to consider the circumstances of their own selection.

The Judicial Selection Commission is an attempt to take politics out of the selection of judges and justices. A "reform" idea out of the 1978 Constitutional Convention, the commission is a bipartisan group that reviews potential applicants and submits a list to the governor for selection. Previously, the governor alone nominated judges.

One of the most powerful duties of the commission is to decide -- by itself -- whether any judge, or justice, will be retained for another term of 10 years.

We believe that most of the people who served on the commission over the years have been public spirited, well intentioned and capable. But no process, no matter how well designed, will work properly when individuals are determined to manipulate it. For instance, we believe that during the period John Waihee was governor it was common for him to confer ahead of time with several commission members who then would strive to get a predetermined name on each list.

In the words of someone who served on the commission during those years, "If a few members decided ahead of time to do their best to get a particular name on a list, they probably were able to do that. No one is so naive as to think there isn't a certain amount of horse trading going on."

According to a prominent Democratic politician, "The commission always seemed to have at least a few people whose first and foremost allegiance was to Governor Waihee. With people like Warren Price, Tom Enomoto, Michael Hare and Gerry Jervis on the commission, it was easy to get one particular name on a list. The thing, though, is that it already had been determined who was going to get the appointment."

This was the era when the commission put 36-year-old Sharon Himeno on a list for the Supreme Court, from which she was selected by Governor Waihee. It bothered some people that Himeno was Attorney General Warren Price's wife and that she wasn't considered an exceptional lawyer.

But the bigger concern for many was an allegation of a serious ethical lapse in connection with a family corporation's apparent $3 million profit on a back-to-back purchase/sale of a mainland golf course involving Himeno's client, the state Employees' Retirement System. Her nomination to the state's highest court seemed to be based on the fact that she and Price had directed their good friend John Waihee's gubernatorial campaign.

When Judge Walter Heen was interviewed as an applicant for the Hawaii Supreme Court, he was asked by Hare "what kind of person" he might select as Bishop Estate trustee, if he ever had the opportunity to do so. According to David Fairbanks, a current member of the commission, such a question, if asked, would have been "totally improper."

That this question was asked of a candidate for the Supreme Court, by a member of the Judicial Selection Commission, illustrates how the trustee-selection power of justices played a significant role (with respect to some members of the commission) in the consideration of candidates for the state's highest court.

Hare's law firm has been paid more than $10 million in legal fees by the Bishop Estate since 1992. It's an excellent firm, but we find it hard to believe that's the reason it was selected by the trustees.

When it comes to its legal armament, few can match the arsenal that Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate can bring to the courtroom.

The $10 billion charitable trust -- the state's largest private landowner -- employs an army of well-connected attorneys that includes a former governor, two former state attorneys general and the former chairman of Hawaii's Republican Party.

The estate's outside legal team also lists House Judiciary Chairman Terrance Tom and Bill McCorriston, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has represented former Mayor Frank Fasi and was on the city Charter Commission.

"With this kind of legal cannon pointed at you, most people would run for cover," said Beadie Dawson, attorney for Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi, which has criticized trustees' management of Kamehameha Schools.

The estate maintains that it hires attorneys for their expertise. Waihee and Tom were hired because they are good attorneys and not because of their political ties, the estate said.

McCorriston, who is representing the estate in Attorney General Margery Bronster's investigation of the trust, added that the trust is like any major corporation that hires lawyers to represent its diverse legal interests.

For instance, for leasehold and litigation matters, the estate relies on Mike Hare and the Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright law firm. The Verner Liipfert firm conducts much of its Washington, D.C., lobbying, while McCorriston's firm, McCorriston Miho Miller Mukai, has done mostly land-use work, McCorriston said.

Bishop Estate trustee Gerard Jervis considered joining the McCorriston Miho firm several months ago as an outside counsel. But Jervis said he decided against the move because of his heavy workload with the estate.

Jon Miho, one of the firm's founders and a friend of Jervis', added that if Jervis had joined McCorriston Miho, it would have made it more difficult for the firm to do work for the estate.

Jervis also shares close political ties with Washington, D.C.-based Verner Liipfert through its local partner Waihee. Jervis served on the Judicial Selection Commission during the Waihee years.

Verner Liipfert -- whose mainland offices lists former U.S Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, former Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole and former Texas Gov. Ann Richards on its roster -- also employs prominent labor-relations attorney and former Hawaii GOP head Jared Jossem and Renton Nip, who served as state Land Use Commission chairman during the Waihee years, in its local office.

Former Attorney General Warren Price and his successor, Robert Marks, through their firm serve as outside counsels to Verner Liipfert and have conducted legal work for the estate.

To be sure, the legal work for the estate can be lucrative. According to its tax filings, the estate's nonprofit unit paid nearly $4.2 million in legal fees during the year ending June 30, 1996.

More than half, or $2.75 million, went to Cades Schutte, which does the legal work for the estate's leasehold conversions and some of its real-estate litigation.

Waihee's firm, Verner Liipfert, earned $844,245, while the Ching Yuen & Morikawa firm -- whose partners include longtime Waihee friend Bill Yuen -- was paid $580,603.

The estate paid McCorriston Miho $223,079 in legal fees for the fiscal year 1995 and another $235,050 for the 1993 fiscal year.

Randall Roth, University of Hawaii law professor and co-author of a scathing report that helped launch Bronster's investigation of the estate, criticized the large amount of legal fees that the estate pays each year -- especially since it is a nonprofit organization.

While the estate's attorneys are among the top in town, Roth believes that political connections probably play a key role in who gets selected for its legal work.

"This strikes me as an exorbitant amount of money for a charity to be spending on legal fees, especially when it has its own legal department," said Roth. "We can only wonder if the money is well-spent."

And the spending doesn't include legal bills wracked up by Bishop Estate's for-profit subsidiaries.

The estate declined to disclose the amount of legal fees that its for-profit units incur each year. But recent news reports said the estate spent $500,000 to defend an $86.7 million lawsuit that film producer Frederick Field filed in 1995 over soured real-estate investments on the mainland.

An estate subsidiary, Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center Inc., wracked up at least $500,000 in legal bills in the McKenzie Methane Corp. legal battle.

The estate sued the Houston-based natural gas company's founder Mike McKenzie in 1992, alleging that fraud and mismanagement led them to lose some $60 million in the venture.

The company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1994 and was sold to the estate, which now says it has been able to recoup much of its losses in McKenzie Methane.

McKenzie denied the estate's fraud allegations, saying its hardball tactics have made his life a legal nightmare.

He said the estate wrongly accused him of stealing money from Hawaiian children and that the estate's attorneys hired private investigators -- two former FBI agents -- to harass him.

Suer of estate finds it
tough to hire a lawyer

When Bobby Harmon filed a wrongful termination suit against Bishop Estate in February, he couldn't find a lawyer to take his case.

The former president of the estate's in-house insurance company, P&C Insurance Co., was turned down by eight local law firms because they either did business with the estate or wanted to, said John Goemans, Harmon's attorney.

Some were just afraid to oppose them, he said.

"The reality is that it's virtually impossible to take on the estate," said Goemans.

Harmon sued the estate after the estate sued him for releasing confidential information.

The estate said Harmon was fired for cause and that the firing was upheld by a state Department of Labor review, which denied him unemployment benefits.

Documents released by Harmon contained false and defamatory allegations, the estate has also said.

A Circuit Court judge recently ruled that Harmon violated a court order not to disclose estate information. The court also said that Harmon did not act in bad faith since he was acting on advice of his lawyer.

For Goemans, the Harmon case underscores the estate's clout in Hawaii's legal community and the difficulties of opposing it. Goemans said his client has run up about $20,000 in legal bills.

"Few have the capability of resisting a $10 billion behemoth with an unlimited supply of lawyers who have a clear modus operandi of deluging opponents with paper," Goemans said.

By Rick Daysog, Star-Bulletin

Kamehameha Schools paid $7 million to settle a lawsuit filed by an anonymous student who claimed the schools' Hawaiians-first admissions policy violates civil rights laws, according to an attorney involved in the case.

Terms of the confidential settlement have been a closely guarded secret since it was signed in May just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case.

The settlement ended a four-year effort by a non-Hawaiian teenager, known only as John Doe, to enter the Kamehameha Schools system.

Attorney John Goemans — who planned the legal action, found the plaintiff and brought the case to Sacramento private attorney Eric Grant to litigate — revealed the amount of the settlement in an exclusive interview with The Advertiser.

"The amount of the settlement is important public information that should be disclosed by a charitable institution that receives tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service," Goemans said in a telephone interview.

The lawsuit challenging the schools' admissions policy was the first case of its kind to reach the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court and stirred enormous controversy in Hawai'i.

Critics of the settlement pointed out that additional legal challenges could still be mounted against the admissions policy, and news of the $7 million that the schools paid could increase the chances of new lawsuits.

Local attorney David Rosen, who made news last year by actively seeking plaintiffs for a new challenge to the admissions policy, said yesterday he is preparing a suit against Kamehameha Schools.

Kamehameha Schools, previously known as Bishop Estate, is a nonprofit organization with assets of $7.7 billion.

Grant, appearing yesterday at a University of Hawai'i law school symposium on the lawsuit, known as John Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools, declined to discuss the settlement when told that Goemans had disclosed the $7 million figure.

Kamehameha Schools' lead attorney in the lawsuit, Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of the Stanford University law school, also declined comment.

"Terms of the settlement are inviolate," said Sullivan, also a participant at the UH symposium yesterday.

Ann Botticelli, spokeswoman for the Kamehameha Schools board of trustees, also declined to comment on Goemans' statements or the size of the settlement.

The settlement says that anyone who discloses its contents is subject to a $2 million penalty, but Goemans said he was not a party to the agreement and never signed it.

Goemans, who is recovering from heart surgery, said yesterday that he was opposed to the $7 million settlement but that "it was the client's decision" to accept it.

Goemans said an attorney representing Grant breached the confidentiality clause by mailing a copy of the agreement to Goemans last year.

Goemans added that Kamehameha Schools must disclose details of the settlement on its 2007 tax return, which is due to be filed later this year, and on annual financial reports the charity is required to file with the state attorney general's office and with the state court.

Tax returns of nonprofit institutions such as Kamehameha Schools are public records under federal law. The institution's annual financial accountings — which date to its founding by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop in 1888 — are also open to the public.

Kamehameha operates three campuses — its flagship at Kapalama Heights on O'ahu, one on Maui and another on the Big Island — for the benefit of children of Hawaiian ancestry.

The institution plays a central role in Hawai'i society, in part because of its financial clout and in part because of its mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry. It is also the state's largest private landowner.

There are about 70,000 school-age children with Hawaiian blood, and 5,400 students were enrolled at Kamehameha's various schools last year. Kamehameha served 30,000 other children and adults through outreach programs and through its support of charter schools.

Hawai'i federal Judge Alan Kay initially dismissed the John Doe lawsuit in November 2003, upholding the schools' argument that the admissions policy helped address cultural and socio-economic disadvantages that have beset many Hawaiians since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned it in a three-judge decision in 2005. That ruling prompted protest rallies, prayer vigils and other gatherings around the state in support of the schools.

Lawyers for Kamehameha Schools then asked that all members of the appellate court review the matter and the full court reversed the three-judge panel's decision by an 8-7 vote in December 2006.

Grant then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and last May, on the eve of the high court announcement on whether it would take the case, the matter was settled out of court.

"We didn't think that there was a strong possibility (of losing) but that risk is always out there," J. Douglas Ing, chairman of the Kamehameha board of trustees, said in announcing the settlement in 2007. "There are no guarantees and there certainly were no guarantees from our lawyers that we would win the case."

Grant, the attorney for John Doe, said after the case was settled, "Obviously, a settlement is not exactly what either side wanted. But it is something both sides eventually came to terms on."

Goemans is involved in a continuing dispute with John Doe, whose identity has never been revealed, and with Grant over how much money Goemans should receive for his part in the case.

Grant received 40 percent of the overall settlement — $2.8 million — although he had to sue the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother in federal court in Sacramento last year to collect the money, according to Goemans and federal court records.

That collection lawsuit was filed in June after Kamehameha had paid the $7 million settlement. The dispute over the payment of Grant's fee was settled and dismissed in September.

Goemans said he asked John Doe and Jane Doe for 25 percent of the total settlement — $1.75 million — but has not yet received a response.

Grant filed a separate lawsuit against Goemans in California state court last year regarding how much compensation Goemans is owed for his part in the case.

That suit is still pending, although Goemans said he believes it is groundless and will be dismissed.

Grant yesterday declined comment on the collection lawsuit he filed in Sacramento against his own clients or the related action he filed against Goemans.

Goemans said he has received $20,000 in compensation to date from John Doe and his mother and is contemplating filing a new legal action of his own against them.

Yesterday's disclosure of the $7 million payment made by Kamehameha Schools to settle a civil rights lawsuit prompted questions and anger from individuals on both sides of the schools' controversial admissions policy that gives preference to students of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

"It does seem like a lot of money. It sure would be if it was in my pocket," said University of Hawai'i law school professor Jon Van Dyke, who served as a legal consultant to Kamehameha in the lawsuit.

Van Dyke said yesterday he wasn't part of the settlement discussions and still believes the payment led to the right outcome for the school.

The settlement was signed in May just before the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to announce whether it would hear an appeal of the case. Terms of the settlement had been kept confidential until this week. John Goemans, an attorney for the plaintiff in the case, revealed the $7 million figure to The Advertiser.

The settlement meant that an earlier 8-7 vote by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Kamehameha's admissions policy is still the prevailing law.

H. William Burgess, a local attorney who filed legal papers with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiff in the case, said yesterday, "Wow. The settlement was much larger than I thought."

Burgess said he still believes the case should have been heard by the Supreme Court so that legal questions surrounding the school's Hawaiians-first admissions policy were settled.

"I actually think the trustees of the Kamehameha Schools have a legal duty, when there's a legitimate legal question about what they're doing, to seek a resolution of the issue," Burgess said.

News of the $7 million payment provoked more than 500 online postings to The Advertiser that variously criticized school officials who approved the payment and the lawyers and the client who received the money.

Beatrice "Beadie" Dawson, a native Hawaiian attorney who is active in Kamehameha Schools affairs, said yesterday the settlement itself and now news of the $7 million amount "are like an open invitation for more lawsuits."

"I was very dismayed by news of the settlement last year and I was very surprised by the size of it today," Dawson said.

Hawai'i attorney David Rosen, who last year announced plans to file another legal challenge to the school's admission policy, confirmed this week that the lawsuit is taking shape but has not been filed.

He issued a news release yesterday reacting to the settlement amount that said, "The people of Hawai'i should be outraged that the trustees of Kamehameha Schools place a higher value on discriminating rather than educating."

Goemans, the lawyer who publicly revealed the $7 million figure, said he believes the settlement should be a matter of public record given Kamehameha Schools' status as a tax-exempt charitable institution.

Goemans helped bring the civil rights lawsuit against Kamehameha in 2003 on behalf of a non-Hawaiian student denied admission to the high school. The student and the student's mother, who live on the Big Island, have never been identified except as John Doe and Jane Doe.

Goemans also said the settlement is subject to review by the Internal Revenue Service and by the state attorney general's office, which oversees Kamehameha Schools' annual financial accountings filed with state Probate Court.

David Fairbanks, a Honolulu lawyer serving as the appointed "master" who must review Kamehameha's financial fillings for the Probate Court, did not respond to a telephone message for comment yesterday.

The Legal Aid Society of Hawaii has raised $600,000 toward its goal of $1 million to help improve access to justice for Hawaii's poor, one year into its three-year campaign.

"We've had a very generous response to this drive from corporate counsel, law firms, individual attorneys and businesses," said attorney Susan Li, who chairs the campaign with David L. Fairbanks. "They all recognize the critical legal needs and they want to do something about it."

Only one in five low and moderate-income people in Hawaii has their legal needs met, according to a report released last year by the Hawaii Justice Foundation.

On May 1, the Hawaii Supreme Court created an Access to Justice Commission, headed by Associate Justice Simeon Acoba, to substantially increase access to justice in civil legal matters for low and moderate-income residents.

On June 16, the Supreme Court amended one of its rules to boost the interest income paid by banks that goes to support legal services for the poor. The rule requires banks to pay the same rate of interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts that is paid on comparable accounts.

The trust accounts pool clients' funds that are too small or short term to generate net interest on their own.