Opinion ID: 2575840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Referral

Text: Also, considering the particular circumstances of the present case, we refer this matter to ODC for investigation. In doing so, we do not express any opinion as to whether violations of the HRPC have occurred. Although the concurring opinion takes issue with our decision to refer the matter to ODC without further explanation, see concurring opinion, at 229-231, 131 P.3d at 512-514, our approach is no different than that taken in Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai`i 19, 35, 936 P.2d 655, 671 (1997). In Lee, we referred the record to ODC for its review without an explanation of specific misconduct, other than noting that counsel may have engaged in conduct that did not comport with the HRPC. Id. Additionally, contrary to the concurring opinion's assertion, we have not overlook[ed] the fact that this court, in Lee, provided a detailed description of the actions of the defendant-attorney in tortiously interfering with the contractual relations between the plaintiff and the co-defendant in that case[.] Concurring opinion, at 231, 131 P.3d at 514 (brackets added). We recognize that, in Lee, this court explicated in detail the actions of the defendant-attorneys which led to a referral to ODC. See Lee, 85 Hawai`i at 32, 936 P.2d at 668 (Based upon our examination of the record, we believe that there is substantial evidence to support the jury's findings that the [defendant-attorneys] were cognizant of the settlement agreement between Lee and Aiu and that they intentionally proceeded to encourage Aiu to breach that agreement by convincing him to enter into a new contract with them. The evidence further supports the finding that the [defendant-attorneys] were without justification, that is, that they were motivated only by their own personal gain. This is particularly so in light of: (1) [the defendant-attorney's] advice to Aiu that $25,000 for Aiu's putative interest in the Keha Place property was a ridiculous sum of money and that Aiu would be ill-advised to honor it; and (2) the [defendant-attorneys'] subsequent acquisition of Aiu's putative interest for that same `ridiculous' sum.) (brackets added). However, it is obvious that our description of the specific actions of the defendant-attorneys was in the context of analyzing the tortious interference with contractual relations claim. Notably, in the section of the opinion entitled, Referral to the ODC, we did not summarize those actions nor refer to them with any degree of specificity. See Lee, 85 Hawai`i at 35, 936 P.2d at 671. Rather, we merely stated that it appears from the record in this case that [the defendant-attorney] engaged in conduct that may not comport with the HRPC. Id. (brackets added). Accordingly, Lee does not properly stand for the proposition that we may abrogate the general rule, set forth in State v. Mata, 71 Haw. 319, 324, 789 P.2d 1122, 1125 (1990), which plainly states that [w]e cannot pass in these proceedings on whether or not the matters referred to [ODC] involved unprofessional conduct. Id. The distinction lies in the fact that in Lee, this court was required to set forth the actions of the attorneys in order to affirm the trial court's finding of liability with respect to the tortious interference with contractual relations claim filed against the attorneys as party-defendants. [12] In the present case, we are simply faced with a request for attorneys fees, and, inasmuch as there was no independent claim filed against the attorneys as party-defendants, we perceive no reason to risk unduly influencing any forthcoming ODC investigation by extrapolating further. [13] Given the circumstances of the present case, it is inappropriate for this court to express any opinion at this point in time as to whether the matters referred to ODC involve unprofessional conduct. [14] See Mata, 71 Haw. at 324, 789 P.2d at 1125. The explanation proffered by the concurring opinion contravenes this well settled principle by repeatedly expressing an opinion as to the unreasonableness of the fees that were incurred in this case. Such expressions manifestly articulate violations of the HRPC. [15] We therefore decline to selectively discuss specific fee request items in our referral.