Raising Cane
Rob Perez
Discipline for lawyers
is not created equalWhen attorney Stephen A. Levine lied to the court, his law license was suspended for six months, a devastating blow in an island legal community.
When attorney Alvin T. Sasaki lied to the court, he got a slap on the wrist.
A substitute panel of five state judges acting under the auspices of the Hawaii Supreme Court last week publicly censured Sasaki, 50, a Supreme Court staff attorney, and ordered him to perform 300 hours of community service for multiple acts of misconduct from 1988 to 1993.
Sasaki got the substantially lighter sanction even though he repeatedly lied under oath, falsely notarized numerous legal documents, initially attempted to conceal some of his misconduct from investigators and already had one prior sanction from the court. Investigators also determined that Sasaki's misconduct harmed another attorney's client in a civil lawsuit.
By contrast, Levine, a former Maui deputy prosecutor, lied to the court once, was not under oath, and his 1997 infraction did not harm a client, although he misled his then-employer, Maui County. Levine also had no prior sanction.
Both lawyers produced mitigating testimony regarding their professional character and respect in the legal community.
Why the vastly different outcomes for what basically were two cases of lying to the court? (Last week's ruling in the Sasaki case mentioned the November 2001 Supreme Court order suspending Levine, prompting the comparison.)
Circuit Judge George Masuoka of Kauai, the presiding judge on the substitute panel, declined through a spokeswoman to talk about the Sasaki case, saying it's still pending.
But the ruling was the buzz of Honolulu's legal community, and some lawyers say Sasaki was afforded special treatment because of his position and who went to bat for him.
Since November 1993, Sasaki has been an attorney for the Supreme Court, the very body that decides discipline for lawyers guilty of serious misconduct. Although the five justices recused themselves from the Sasaki case because of a conflict of interest -- they're basically his superiors -- their support for him was made clear to the lower-court judges on the panel.
James Branham, Sasaki's supervisor, testified that he believed all the justices valued Sasaki's work, trusted him and relied on him, according to court records. Branham called Sasaki's work exceptional.
If that wasn't enough to get the message across, this certainly was: In a rare move for any judge, let alone one from the high court, Associate Justice Paula Nakayama testified on Sasaki's behalf.
Responding to a subpoena, she said the court considered Sasaki's work "wonderful" and lauded his years of "stellar performance and reliability," the records show.
Levine, by contrast, had no high-powered friends or associates willing to go to bat for him. "I was basically a blue-collar attorney."
Levine said he was bothered and upset about the severity of his sanction compared with Sasaki's punishment.
"It really leaves me speechless," he said.
Ironically, the judge Levine lied to in 1997 was Masuoka, the jurist who presided over the substitute panel.
With the justices standing firmly behind their man, it's no surprise the lower-court judges -- with one dissension, Oahu Circuit Judge Dan Kochi -- rejected the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's recommendation to suspend Sasaki for three years. The ODC investigates allegations of lawyer misconduct and makes discipline recommendations to the Supreme Court.
"If I had done that kind of conduct, I would've been disbarred," said attorney Earle Partington, a frequent Judiciary critic. "This case is a clear example of, if you're connected, you're protected. This kind of conduct goes to the core issues of lawyer integrity. What he did was defraud the court."
Neither Sasaki nor his lawyer responded to requests for comment.
The case also has come under fire because it took three years for the high court to issue its ruling -- compared with the more typical turnaround of several months -- and no explanation was given for the delay. Yet the substitute panel cited the lengthy period between Sasaki's infractions and the ruling to help explain why it was lessening the sanction.
"There's no excuse for a three-year delay," said attorney Evan Shirley, an expert on Hawaii legal ethics. "This is not a complicated case. And to add insult to injury, the acting justices say (Sasaki) should not be punished because of a delay in which they contributed to."
A court spokeswoman said she didn't know why the ruling took three years, referring questions to Masuoka.
Asked to comment on the substitute panel's ruling, Carroll Taylor, chairman of the ODC board, said the board was considering its options.
Court rules appear to permit the ODC to ask the court to reconsider a ruling. Taylor said it wouldn't be appropriate for him to comment on whether that would be pursued.
The numerous acts of misconduct that Sasaki admitted to happened mostly while he was in private practice and included lying when questioned under oath in a civil deposition and when questioned by the ODC shortly after Sasaki joined the Supreme Court staff.
In one instance, Sasaki was given blueprints of a residence, details regarding the home and descriptions and photos of people who were at a will signing so he could answer questions at the deposition and support the lie that he was at the signing, court records show.
In his first brush with the ODC, Sasaki was publicly reprimanded in 1993 for falsely notarizing a mortgage document.
His lawyers said Sasaki's various acts of misconduct were not done for personal benefit and were aberrations in an otherwise respected career. They said such misconduct likely never would be repeated.
Likewise, the ODC cited as mitigating factors Sasaki's exemplary behavior since 1993, his subsequent cooperation with authorities, his expression of remorse and the respect his peers have for his integrity -- yet it still recommended a three-year suspension.
A number of people submitted letters vouching for Sasaki's character, including then-City Councilman Andy Mirikitani, his boss in 1993 when the ODC filed its first allegations against Sasaki. Mirikitani in 2001 began serving a federal prison sentence for a kickback and extortion scheme.
In arguing for leniency for their client, Sasaki's lawyers said the purpose of disciplining attorneys was not to punish but to protect the public and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the dignity of the court.
But when a case like this surfaces, raising questions about fairness, it's precisely the integrity of the legal profession and the dignity of the court that suffer.
As Partington said: "This is an indication of how sick our disciplinary system is."
Star-Bulletin columnist Rob Perez writes on issues
and events affecting Hawaii. Fax 529-4750, or write to
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., No. 7-210,
Honolulu 96813. He can also be reached
by e-mail at: rperez@starbulletin.com.