Case Title: Breiner v. Sunderland

Citation: 112 Haw. 60

Docket Number: 6889

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

#¢# FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAT'T REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘T

 

-— 000 —

 

MYLES S. BREINER, Petitioner,

  

.
ae 8
8
=
3

No. 27889
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
SEPTEMBER 22, 2006
NOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE WATANABE, IN PLACE OF ACOBA, J., RECUSED, AND CIRCUIT JUDGE
‘WARA, IN PLACE OF DUFFY, J., RECUSED

Per Curiam. Attorney Myles S. Breiner petitions this
court for a writ of prohibition or other relief with regard to
disciplinary investigations being conducted by Special Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, Respondent Magali V. Sunderland, on behalf
of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (00C). We grant the
petition and order that

(1) Disciplinary Counsel shall forthwith remove

Sunderland from further participation in any
investigation involving Breiner:

(2) Disciplinary Counsel shall assign other

assistant disciplinary counsel, within the
time specified infra, to review the files and
make recommendations for ODC Case Nos. 6889

and 6117, as more specifically set out below;

oss
*## FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and

8)

“

PACIFIC REPORTER *#*
Disciplinary Counsel shall, in light of this
opinion and within a reasonable tine

hereafter, review the propriety or
appropriateness of Sunderland’s clains for
compensation with regard to the

investigations of ODC Case Nos. 6889 and

8117; and

Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board
shall propose, within 180 days after the date of
this opinion, Disciplinary Soard and/or Suprene
Court rules concerning (a) the scope of
disciplinary investigations, including, but not
Limited to, subject matters that may permissibly
be investigated or discovered in relation toa
complaint or grievance and (b) the means by which
an attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary
investigation or proceeding may seek protective
orders from the Disciplinary Board and this court.

1. RELEVANT FACTS

grievances.

Counsel assigned to investigate both grievances.

Breiner is the subject of two attorney discipline

Sunderland is the Special Assistant Disciplinary

and the course of each investigation are summarized below.

Martinelli Investication (DC Case No. 6889)
In a letter received at the ODC on March 10, 2000,

Robert Martinelli stated he was indicted for a federal drug

offense in August 1996, and Breiner was appointed to represent

2

‘The grievances
*** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’ S HANAT'T REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER **

him. According to Martinelli, Breiner advised that it would be
expensive to fight the case, the court did not pay enough, and
Breiner said he would provide a better defense if Martinelli
privately retained him. Martinelli related that he was then
incarcerated and agreed to have his girlfriend meet Breiner and
give Breiner a $5,000 check. Breiner took the money to handle
Martinelli’s case and “said words to the effect of ‘okay, 1/11
use this for investigating your case and I11 stay on as your
court-appointed attorney, but don’t tell anyone about this.’”
Martinelli said there Kas no retainer agreement and that Breiner
“kept saying he needed more money . . . while he was still court-
appointed.” Martinelli complained that he wanted his money back.

on March 10, 2000, Aseistant Disciplinary Counsel Brian
Means copied Martinelli’s letter to Breiner and asked Breiner to
respond. Breiner responded by letter dated March 15, 2000."
Breiner acknowledged that he was appointed to represent
Martinelli in the federal case. Breiner explained that, in
response to questions from Martinelli, Breiner had told
Nertinelli that it made no difference whether Breiner was court-
appointed or privately retained. According to Breiner,
Martinelli insisted Breiner would do a better job if he were
privately retained, a common misconception among criminal
defendants. In sum, Breiner said he acquiesced to Martinelli’s
request and tock $5,000 as a fee. Breiner deposited the check
into his clients’ trust account on September 23, 1996.

 

+ With regard te the investigations discussed herein, Breiner has at

times acted pro se and at other times has been represented by attorneys David
5. Gleriach, David P. Klein, or Eric A. Seite.

3
‘*#* FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER *#*

According to information provided for this proceeding,
a plea agreenent resulted in the dismissal of the Martinelli
indictment on February 27, 1997. On March 4, 1997, Breiner
transferred the $5,000 from his clients’ trust account into his

business account. Breiner did not seek payment from the federal

 

government for his services as court-;
Sometime after Breiner submitted his March 15, 2000

jppointed counsel.

written response to Martinelli's letter, Sunderland took over the
investigation. By letter dated November 20, 2003, Sunderland
scheduled a meeting with Breiner for Novenber 26, 2003.
Sunderland required that Breiner bring with him financial records

related to Martinelli and Martinelli’s complete, original file.

 

Breiner asserts he and his attorney met with Sunderland and
produced Breiner’s financial records.

Twenty-six months later, on Janvary 27, 2006,
Sunderland wrote to Breiner’s attorney and asked for Breiner’ s
responses to twenty-six questions regarding details about
Breiner’s actions in the Martinelli case, vhether Breiner had
complied with the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC),
whether Breiner admitted any ethical violations, and whether
Breiner claimed any mitigating factors.

To date, the ODC has neither formally charged Breiner
nor dismissed the Martinelli grievance.

B. Barut Investigation (onc case No. #117)

By letter dated June 25, 2004, Sunderland informed
Breiner that Vanessa Barut had “filed” a “complaint” with oDc
concerning “fees allegedly oved." A copy of Barut’s complaint
‘+** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

does not appear to have been provided with Sunderland’s letter to
Breiner, and it has not been provided to this court.
Sunderland's letter asked Breiner to “provide . . . a complete
copy of the original file for Ms. Barut.” (Emphases in the
original.)

Sunderland’ s June 25, 2004 letter required Breiner,
‘among other things, to identify accounts where he deposited money
received from Barut and to submit: (1) copies of deposit slips
used to deposit Barut’s funds; (2) cash receipt and disbursenent
Jovenals; (3) a subsidiary ledger; (4) any retainer or
compensation agreement; (5) billing statements; (6) records of
+ (7) check books:

 

payments to attorneys, investigators, or other:
(8) check stubs; (9) bank statements; (10) pre-numbered cancelled

checks: (11) monthly trust account reconciliations; and (12) all

 

records showing a listing of client trust accounts, including
names and account balances from 1996. In addition, the letter
required Breiner to provide copies of all records related to
Barut’s case. Breiner responded by letter dated July 7, 2004.
Breiner’s response identified the nature of the federal criminal
charges against Barut, the circumstances under which Breiner was
retained, Breiner’s understanding of his fee agreement with

subsequent agreements with regard

 

Barut, the results of the ca
to the application of a posted bond to his fee, and the
circunstances of Breiner’s withdrawal from the case. Sreiner's
response also included copies of documents referred to in the
letter. On September 10, 2004, Breiner wrote to O0C, seeking
guidance about how to handle a check from the United States
*#4 FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAT'T REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER *#*

District Court in the amount of the disputed attorney's fees.
The check represented proceeds from bail deposited by Breiner for
Barut in that court. On September 17, 2004, an Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel advised Breiner that the funds should be
placed in Breiner's “client trust account pending resolution of
the fee dispute” and noted that the fee dispute might be resolved
by interpleader in the United States District court.

By letter dated November $, 2004, Sunderland sought
detailed answers to seventeen additional questions related to
Breiner’s representation of Barut, many of which had nothing to
do with Barut’s fee complaint. Breiner’s January 12, 2005,
response acknowledged a flat fee retainer agreement but stated
that Barut had offered to pay additional money when she realized
the anount of work needed. Breiner’s January 12, 2005 letter
also set out a response to each of Sunderland's seventeen
enumerated questions.

on March 22, 2005, Sunderland asked Breiner to respond
to twenty-four additional questions. Breiner responded on May
19, 2005, and, thereafter, Sunderland sought additional
information by telephone on June 23, 2005. Breiner responded on
August 26, 2005.

On October 10, 2005, Sunderland sought responses to

twenty-nine additional questions. Breiner responded to each

 

question by letter dated January 19, 2006.
On January 26, 2006, Sunderland sent to Breiner one
hundred additional questions, many with multiple sub-questions,
4% FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

‘and, on February 3, 2006, Sunderland forwarded two more
questions.

To date, ODC has neither formally charged Breiner nor
dismissed the Barut grievance

C.  Breiner’s attorney seeks supervision

on March 20, 2006, Breiner’s attorney wrote to the
Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Carole Richelieu, complaining of
Sunderland’ s “oppressive and overreaching behaviors.” Breiner’s
attorney demanded that Richelieu “rein in Ms. Sunderland and
establish written guidelines for the proper scope of any
Sinvestigations[,]' . . . clear limitations[,] both in terms of
time periods and subject matters that she will be allowed to
inguire into(,] and a review procedure for attorneys who may
object to and be aggrieved by her overly zealous conduct.”
on April 13, 2006, Richelieu responded that

 

Sunderland’s “requests for information seem appropriate, focused,
and necessary to conclude complex investigations into serious

allegations of misconduct by clients{.1”

TT, REVIEW BY WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
on April 17, 2006, Breiner petitioned for a writ of
prohibition, naming Sunderland and the ODC as respondents.
Breiner asks this court to:
(1) restrict Sunderland's conduct in the two
ongoing ODC investigations and all future

investigations involving Breiner;
*#* FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

(2) order the investigation to proceed in a timely and
reasonable manner with limitations for tine
periods and subject matters; and

(3) order 00¢ to establish written guidelines for
the proper scope of the investigations.
On June 7, 2006, this court ordered Sunderland and o0C

(Respondents) to answer the petition. Respondents answered on

daly 6, 2006; Breiner replied on July 18, 2006.

HIT, DESCUSSION

Respondents argue that Breiner’s petition should be
denied because

(A) Breiner cannot establish a clear and

indisputable right to relief;

(8) under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,

this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction:

(C) Breiner lacks standing to bring this action

at this times and

(D) existing rules, policies, and procedures

already establish guidelines for the scope of
investigations and a review procedure.
We reject Respondents’ arguments.

“The [ODC] and the Disciplinary Board are creatures of
this court, created pursuant to the court’s inherent and
constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law.” In xe
Disciplinary Board, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 964 P.2d 688, 693
(1999), The ODC and the Board are tasked “to carry out this

court's authority to investigate, prosecute, dispose of, or make

e
+** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

reconmendations about attorney disciplinary matters.” Id. at
368-69, 984 P.2d at 693-94. As an agent of this court, the ODC
can act only within the authority granted by this court, and
separation of powers concerns do not require that we give the ODC
the kind of deference given to legislatively created

Gf. Cariglia v. Bar Counsel, 813 N.E.2d
498, 503 (Mass. 2004) (bar counsel’s discretion to investigate

 

administrative agenci

and prosecute is not subject to the same deference as is given
criminal or regulatory prosecutor in the executive branch).
Disciplinary Counsel's duties are owed to the suprene
court, and Disciplinary Counsel's powers to investigate
disciplinary grievances are granted by court rule. See Rules of
the Suprene Court of Hawai'i (RSCH) Rules 2.6(b) (2) and 2.7; in
ke Disciplinary Board, 91 Hawai'i at 369, 964 P.2d at 674. RSCH
Rule 2.6(b) (2)? authorizes Disciplinary Counsel “(t]o investigate
all matters involving alleged misconduct {.]” RSCH Rule 2.7(a)?

 

 

+ specifically, RSCH Rule 2.6(b) (2) states in relevant part:
2.6. Disciplinary counsel.
(@) Counsel shall have the power and duty:
{2} To dnvestigate a11 matters involving alleged
misconduct called to nis or her attention whether By
Complaint oF otherwise.

(Bold enphases in original.)

 

> specifically, ASCH Rule 2.7(a) state

2.7, Procedure.
(a) Investigacion, All investigations, whether upon
complaint or otherwise, shal! be concucted under the
Supervision of Counsel: Upon the conclusion of an
Investigation, Counsel shall reccmmend dismissal, informal
admonition of the attorney concerned, the institution of
(continued...)

 
‘*#% FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAT'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

outlines procedures for investigating and taking action regarding
attorneys against whom grievances have been submitted. although
we prefer that ODC operate under Disciplinary Board supervision
without our intervention, we have the responsibility and duty to
regulate and direct the actions of the Disciplinary Board and the
Ss, we will not

 

00C, and, when a proven need to do so ari
hesitate to exercise our responsibilities and duties. Cf, In ze
MPa, 361 N.W.26 386, 392 (Minn. 1985) (Although it was “not
always clear whether petitioner [was] seeking 2 writ of
prohibition or a writ of mandamus(,]” the court had “original
jurisdiction to issue either writ” because the action seeking
restraint of the Director of the Lawyers Professional
Responsibility Board arose “from the attorney disciplinary

process.”

 

In response to Breiner‘s petition, Respondents cite to the
processes for reviewing reports and recommendations for
discipline, set forth in Disciplinary Board (DB) Rules 3(c) and
(a) and RSCH Rule 2.7(c) (formal hearing) and (d) (review by

>(.sseonténues)
Ron-disciplinary proceedings for minor alsconduct, or the
institution of formal disciplinary proceedings before
hearing committee or officer. Counsel's reconnendation
shall be reviewed by one of the two enbers of the Board
iigned for that purpose. If the initial reviewing member
Of the Board approves Counsel's reconnendation, it shall be
Implemented. “Tf the reviewing senber of the Board
disapproves Counsel's recommendation, Counsel may request
further review by the other reviewing menber of the sosrd.
In the event of auch second review of Counsel's
recomendstion, the decision by the second reviewing nenber
Of the Board shall be final. the menber or members of the
Board who review Counsel's reconmensation shall be
Giequalified in any formal disciplinary proceedings in
Felation to the same alleges misconduct.

 

   

 

(Bolded emphases in original.)
10
‘### POR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Board and Supreme Court), as providing appropriate avenues for
review. DB Rule 3 provides in relevant part:

Initiation of Investigations; Cases in Which Counsel is

Disqualified.

{e) Motion to Disqualify Counsel. If the respondent.
moves to disqualify Counsel, the matter shall be heard by
The cheieperson of the Beard. In the event Counsel is
Slsquelified, the last two sentences of paragraph (b) of
this role spply-U')

(a) Complaints Against Board Members or Countel..
complaints filed against lawyer members of the Board or
Counsel shall be handled in the following manne:

(i) the original complaint shall be inmediately forwarded
{othe enaizperson of the Soard for initial review and
analysis.

(2) T1'the Chaizperson of the Board determines thet the
Complaint fatis cuteide the Jurisdiction of the Board
Gnuer {RScH) Aule 2 or that sufficient information is
fot contained in the complaint to allow @ meaningful.
Thvestigation, the Chairperson of the Board shall
pronpely notify the complsinant that no investigation
Siitbe undertaken or that further information is
heeded before an investigation may be undertaken

(3) Tithe Chairperson of the Soard determines that the
Ekapiaine felis within the jurisdiction of the Board
Under (8SCH] Aule 2[-1'] and that sufficient

 

 

<The lest two sentences of DB Rule 3(b) state:

‘The Chaizperson of the Board shell inmediately revie
fatter and, unless he of she concludes that the natter
Should be summarily dississed, shall appoint Special
Rasistent Disciplinary Counsel to discharge the powers and
duties of Counsel in the particular matter, including the
Srocedures set forth in paragraph (a) (4) of this rule. Any
Eonciueion by the Chairperson of the Board that the matter
Should be suumarily diseissed shall be promptly communicated
By the chairperson of the Board to the complainant and the
Pespondent without further Board action.

the

 

 

 

* ASCH Rule 2.1, Jurisdiction, state:

 

Any attorney admitted to practice law in this state
and any attorney specially acmitted by # court of this state
for a particular proceeding is subject to the exclusive
Sisclplinary jursedietion of the supreme court and the Board
Rereinazter established.

‘Rothing herein contained shall be construed to deny te
any court such powers a2 are necessary for that court to
aintain control over proceedings conducted before it, such

(continued:

 

 

nu
‘*** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER *##

Anformation is contained in the complaint to allow
Beaningful investigation, the Chairperson shail
Sppoine a lauyer menber from the list of hearing
Connittes menters or officers to conduct the
Investigation of the complaint

(4) In investigating the complaint, the hearing committee
ember or officer appointed by’ the Chairperson of the
Board shall request written and/or verbal input from
the complaining party and the party complained against
25 deened necessary. Also, ‘the hearing committee
Benber or officer may utilize directly the services of
Snvestigators enployed at the Office of Disesplinsry
Counsel (0D) to conduct interviews and to obtain
ether information needed to properly evaluate the
complaint.

(5) The bearing committee menber or officer shall, bs
fon Anformation acquired during the investigation,
prepere and forward to the Chairperson of the Board s
Feconmendat ion concerning the merits of the complaint.

(6) The Chairperson of the Board shall affirm or sovify
the recommendation of the hearing comaittes menber oF
officer, or shall renand the matter to the hesring
Committee menber or officer for further investigation.

(7) The Chairperson of the Board shall, upon effizaing oF
modifying the reccenendation of the hearing conmictee
Benber oF officer, promptly notify the parties of the
Gecision

(8) IE the decision of the Chairperson of the Board is
that an Infornat Adnonition should be inposed, the
Chairperson shall impose the Adnonition in accordsnce
with ba 3

(9) If the decision of the Chairperson of the Board is
that formal disciplinery proceeding should b
commenced, the Board shall appoint Special Assistent
Disciplinary Counsel to present the case pursuant to
{RSCH] Rules 2.7(c) and (a). In scdition, where
formal disciplinary proceedings are brought against @
lawyer meaber of the Boara, other Board meabers may
recuse thenselves if appropriate and appointment of ad
hoe menbers of the Board shall, if necessary, be
undertaken pursuant to [RSCH) fule 2.4(c)

(10) Ifa conplaine is fled against. the Chairperson of the
Board, the Vice Chairpersea of the Board (and, upon
absence, disability, or disqualification of the Vice
Chairperson, the Secretary of the Board) shall
undertake the duties of the Chairperscn described
above.

(22) Upon" Final completion of the investigation or
Proceeding, ali files in the case shell be forwarded

 

 

s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*(..-eontinuea)
‘a8 the power of contenpt, nor to prohibit any voluntary bar
2ssociation from censuring s member or suspending oF
expelling @ rember from senbership in the association.

a2
se# FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

to 00C, which shall maintain a permanent record of the
SSLOUE am"accordance with procedures established by
the Board.

(Footnotes added.) DB Rules 3(c) and (d), in the circumstances
presented by this petition, are insufficient to curb an abusive
or otherwise improper investigation. First, although a motion to
disqualify Sunderland under 0B Rule 3(c) might have been
appropriate, Breiner’s attorney has denonstrated that the filing
of such a motion would have been futile. Breiner’s attorney
provided evidence that a previous attempt to seek the
Disciplinary Board Chair's review of Sunderland's actions in a
disciplinary case involving ancther attorney was rejected by the
pisciplinary Board Chair. In that instance, the Disciplinary
poard Chair responded that the “request to have Ms, Sunderland
removed from [the] case {was} misdirected to me (or any other
menber of the Disciplinary Board). The responsibility for
assignnent to particular cases lies with Chief Disciplinary
counsel . . - and it is the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's
responsibility to remove her . . . if warranted.”
Second, although DB Rule 3(é) governs disciplinary
complaints about Disciplinary Board menbers end Disciplinary
counsel, which would include special assistant disciplinary
counsel such as Sunderland, such complaints would be treated as &
disciplinary complaint and proceed through formal disciplinary
proceedings, if warranted. In other words, DB Rule 3(é) does not

13

 
‘*** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

have the effect of removing an investigating attorney from a

Respondents’ reliance on the formal hearing and review
processes set forth in RSCH 2.7(c) and (d) are similarly
misplaced. Martinelli's grievance was brought before ODC as
early as March 10, 2000, and Barut's grievance was brought before
O0C as early as June 4, 2004. Yet the investigations are
ongoing, formal petitions have not been filed, hearing officers
OF committees have not been appointed, hearings have not been
conducted, and, given the pace and tenor of the investigations,
there is no likelihood that the regular disciplinary avenues of
oversight by this court will be available any time soon. We will
not allow an attorney to be subjected to abusive investigative
tactics while he or she waits for the opportunity to have such
tactics reviewed in connection with a report and recommendation
for discipline that may never be filed with this court.

In sum, based upon the circumstances of this case, a
motion to disqualify clearly would have been futile, Breiner’ s
Petition is not a disciplinary complaint, and Breiner has no
ether avenue by which to seek relief from alleged unprofessional
and oppressive investigation tactics. In circumstances where no
other avenue of review is available, we will review complaints

‘about ODC by way of petition. The application of mandamus or

u
‘** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

prohibition standards is particularly appropriate where, as here,
there is an allegation regarding the manner in which an ODC
investigation is being undertaken by a Special Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel.

We fully recognize that an attorney has a duty to
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. See HRPC Rule
8.4(d).* Sunderland’s questions to Breiner, however, require
much more than cooperation regarding grievances submitted by
Breiner’s clients, In fact, Sunderland’s questions require
Breiner to make adniseions, to analyze and apply rules, and to
state legal conclusions. Cf. In re Korvl, 481 N.£.24 393, 394

(ind, 1985) (stating the “duty to cooperate dor

 

not, needless to

say, require an admission of violation, nor does it preclude the

 

advocacy of a theory of defense which is contradictory to the
allegations of misconduct”; although “Respondent's duty to
cooperate does require compliance with professional standards(,]”
the “Disciplinary Commission cannot use its authority to charge
misconduct as 2 substitute for normal channels of discovery or to

force a response which is otherwise permissive”). Sunderland's

 

(a) state:

 

+ spectticaily, RPC Rule 8.

 

Rule 6.4. MIscorpucr.
it! is professional misconduct for # lawyer to:

{d) fail to cooperate during the course of an ethics
Anveatigation or disciplinary proceedings:

(Bold emphases in original.)
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and

PACIFIC REPORTER *#*

letter-questions are interrogatories of the worst sort inasmuch

as they are onerous and, in a number of instances, improper.

Many questions ask Breiner to opine on matters that the ODC

appears to be trying to establish and for which it bears the

burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. RSCH Rule

2.7(c). For example, in Sunderland’s January 26, 2006 letter to

Breiner:

(a)

(b)

‘)

question 32 asks Breiner to “state how [his]

+. Submission . . . complies with HRPC
(Rule] @.4(c) in view of [Barut’s) written’
April 28, 2001 fee agreement”;

ks Breiner how his statements

 

question 39
to Barut comply with HREC Rule 8.4(c); and
question 53 sets out numerous scenarios and
asks Breiner multiple times to state or

explain how his actions, as set out in the

enarios, complied with various rules. At

 

the same time, Sunderland included
parentheticals purportedly stating the

judgmental “view” of the oDc.

Some “questions” are offensively imperious. For

example, question 49 in the January 26, 2006 letter concludes

that Breiner did not answer a question posed by Sunderland in her

16
‘#* FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

october 10, 2005 letter and lectures that “[aldvising this office
in ‘hindsight’ that (an answer] should have been included does
not state why it was not included.”

Other questions exhibit a complete misunderstanding of
the rules at best or constitute harassment at worst. For
example, questions 4 through 10 of Sunderland’s January 27, 2006
letter mischaracterize the purported private fee agreement with

Martinelli as a “business transaction with a client,”

 

prohibited by RSCH Rule 1.8, and demands that Breiner analyze his
actions in light of the characterization. Obviously, a standard
fee agreement between an attorney and his or her client can
hardly be said to be the type of prohibited “business
transaction” contemplated by Rule 1.8.

Sunderland’ s questions and coments, in our view,
clearly exceed any rule of reasonableness that can be applied to
the broad discretion granted for disciplinary investigation. In
Ince Artis, 883 A.2d @5 (D.C. 2005), the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals agreed “that interrogatories, as provided for
under civil court rules, should not be incorporated into the
disciplinary process without promulgation of rules governing
their use” but noted that, if investigatory inquiries “were
tantenount to. . . interrogatories . . . [,] such discovery

would be subject to the limitation of reasonableness under the

nv
FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER *#*

   

circumstances” and agreed with a disciplinary board’s analysis
that found some of disciplinary counsel's questions in the case
before it were “overly broad” when they asked a respondent ‘to

explain in detail’ his conduct or to do so in light of the

 

disciplinary rules(.]” id. at 101-02. As in the instant ca:
the court in Ince Artis found other questions improper because
they were “overly broad, vague, burdensome and called for legal
conclusions{.]” Id, Moreover, in Attorney Grievance Commission
ef Marviand vy, Ward, __A.2d __ (Md. Aug. 2, 2006) (2006 WL
2135548), the Naryland Court of Appeals, in ruling upon Bar
Counsel's exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings and
conclusions, found that a hearing judge did not abuse he
discretion when she concluded that Bar Counsel was “seeking to go
on a fishing expedition” and, therefore, refused discovery of
financial records.

Taken in toto, Sunderland's investigation of the
grievances submitted by Breiner’s clients, as exhibited by the
uncontested written communications in the record of this action,
was overbroad, uncivil, and abusive.

The processes for reviewing reports and recomiuendations
for discipline under DB Rule 3 and RSCH Rule 2.7 provided Breiner
no remedy for curbing Sunderland's abusive investigatory tactics

and overreaching discovery practices. Neither the Disciplinary

18
‘#* FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Board Rules nor the RSCH provide processes or procedures for
addressing issues of abusive investigatory tactics and
overreaching discovery practices. Inasmuch as Breiner has been
left with no mechanism by which to seek a remedy for the abusive
investigatory or discovery tactics employed in this case, review
by way of the subject petition is appropriate.

Sunderland’ s investigatory practices, as demonstrated
by Breiner, reflect poorly on the integrity of the disciplinary
process created by this court. Although in In ce Disciplinary
oard, 91 Hawai'i at 370, 984 P.2d at 695, we found nothing “to
indicate [the] 00C . . . (had) abused the discretion granted by
this court or . . . {had} breached any duty owed to this court,”
Breiner’s case is clearly distinguishable. The information
provided in this proceeding unquestionably shows a breach of the
one’s duty to investigate and prosecute fairly and an abuse by
Ov€ of the broad discretion granted by this court.

Under these circumstances, we grant Breiner’s petition

 

and order that Disciplinary Counsel shall:
(2) forthwith remove Sunderland from further
participation in any investigation involving
Breiner:
(2) no later than thirty days after the date of

this opinion, assign other assistant

1s
*#* FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER *#*

disciplinary counsel (successor counsel) to
review the files for ODC Case Nos. 6889 and
8117. Successor counsel shall complete the
review and make a recommendation, in
accordance with RSCH 2.7(a), no later than
thirty days after his or her assignment. The
reviewing Board menber shall act upon
successor counsel’s recommendation within
thirty days after it is received. 1f formal
Proceedings, including any recommendation to
this court, are instituted, they shall be
conducted and completed no later than six
months from the date of this opinion; and if
(a) successor counsel's reconmendation is not
made and acted upon within the time provided
herein and (b) formal proceedings, including
any recommendation to this court, are not
conducted and completed within six months
from the date of this opinion, ODC Case Nos.

6889 and 8117 shall be dismissed; and

(3) in Light of this opinion and within a reasonable

time after the date of this opinion, review the

propriety or appropriateness of Sunderland’ s

20
ss FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS and
PACIFIC REPORTER ***

clains for compensation with regard to the
Snvestigations of ODC Case Nos. 6889 and
aur.

We further order that, within 180 days after the date
of this opinion, the Disciplinary Board shall propose to this
court Disciplinary Board and/or Svprene Court rules concerning
(1) the scope of disciplinary investigations, including, but not
Linited to, subject matters that may permissibly be investigated
or discovered in relation to a complaint or grievance and (2) the
means by which an attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary
investigation or proceeding may seek protective orders from the
Disciplinary Board and this court.

Eric A. Seitz, Lawrence Gp
To Ravasaki, and Ronald
Ni i. Kim, for petitioner

myles S, Breiner Ble edaod nso
Russell &. Suzuki,
for Respondents Magali V.

Sunderland and Office of Cunne KO Watanabe

Disciplinary Counsel

2a