Opinion ID: 2585525
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: representations by attorneys

Text: The Matsuuras argue that their reliance upon DuPont's representations was reasonable because such representations were made through DuPont's attorneys. This court has stated: The practice of law is an honorable profession that requires its practitioners to behave in accordance with high ethical standards, including compliance with court rules and orders. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lau, 79 Hawai`i 201, 207, 900 P.2d 777, 783 (1995). The Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) outline an attorney's ethical and professional responsibilities and specifically forbid the type of misrepresentations alleged by the Matsuuras. The HRPC provide, inter alia: A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, HRPC Rule 1.2(d) (2001); A lawyer shall reveal information which clearly establishes a criminal or fraudulent act of the client in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services has been used, to the extent reasonably necessary to rectify the consequences of such act, where the act has resulted in substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another, HRPC Rule 1.6(b) (2001); A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, HRPC Rule 3.3(a)(1) (2001); A lawyer shall not fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client, HRPC Rule 3.3(a)(2) (2001); A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act, HRPC Rule 3.4(a) (2001). Moreover, [c]ourts presume that attorneys abide by their professional responsibilities. Associates Fin. Servs. Co. of Hawai`i, Inc. v. Mijo, 87 Hawai`i 19, 31, 950 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1998). The courts' presumption that attorneys will not make false representations before them suggests that a similar assumption on the part of opposing counsel and adverse parties is a reasonable one. Hawai`i law establishes, however, that reliance upon representations of an attorney is not per se reasonable or justified. Although noting that an attorney should be justified in relying upon the statements of another attorney because attorneys are prohibited from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, the ICA held that the parties were not justified in relying upon opposing counsel's settlement representations because Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 605-7 provides that attorneys have no authority to settle without special authority in writing. Cook v. Surety Life Ins. Co., 79 Hawai`i 403, 412, 903 P.2d 708, 717 (App.1995) (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and emphasis omitted). Thus, the ICA determined that, in spite of the ethical duties placed upon attorneys, the facts of the case before it, including the requirements of HRS § 605-7, indicated that reliance upon the attorney's representations was not reasonable under the circumstances. In the present case, however, there is no clear statutory or other authority indicating that reliance upon the representations was unreasonable as a matter of law.