Gathering Place
By Marsha E. Kitagawa
Myths and misconceptions
about court system persistI am writing to clear up misconceptions about the state court system; to provide information about where to file case-related complaints; and to solicit public input on the proposal to make the attorney disciplinary process more open.
>> The court is often blamed when litigants don't "win." A May 6 letter to the editor says that "(thousands) of injustices to children and parents have been allowed in Family Court." The writer provides no facts to support this claim. Parties sometimes characterize the justice system as unfair or ineffectual when they are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case.
The letter writer says special prosecutors should investigate individuals responsible for "the most serious infractions." Actually, the law provides several ways to review case-related complaints. People who believe a judge's decision is inconsistent with the law may file a motion for reconsideration or appeal to a higher court. Those who believe a judge has committed an unethical act may file a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct and comment on the judge's suitability for retention before the Judicial Selection Commission.
Ethics complaints about attorneys may be made to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Complaints about services received from, or the qualifications and training of, mental health professionals or others assisting in a court case may be made to the appropriate professional association or state agency.
>> The "culture of secrecy" myth persists. A May 14 letter to the editor says the Commission on Judicial Conduct's and Office of Disciplinary Conduct's handling of certain cases may show bias and double standards. While confidentiality rules prevent me from addressing the writer's comments about cases alleging judicial and attorney misconduct, I will respond to his assertion that the Supreme Court is "... [perpetuating] the culture of secrecy that protects them."
Chief Justice Ronald Moon has accomplished much to make the court system more transparent. Hawaii may be the only state with a merit-based judicial retention system to have "outsiders" meet with individual judges to review their performance evaluations and offer suggestions for improvement. Moon enlisted the services of knowledgeable members of the public to address concerns that the Judiciary's judicial evaluation program is too secretive and completely "in house."
Moon has long made public the names of all District and District Family Court nominees submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission before making his selection and welcomes public comment on the character and qualifications of the nominees. Former Governor Cayetano, when serving as the appointing authority for appellate and circuit court vacancies, did not release the names of the nominees until after he selected his candidate.
Moon asked for a conference to identify areas where more openness in the judicial system may be welcome and to address how that openness can best be achieved. Representatives from the public, media and legal community are planning a November conference.
>> Public comment welcome on making attorney disciplinary process more open. The Star-Bulletin recently devoted much space to the debate about whether the attorney disciplinary process should be more open. The Hawaii Supreme Court invites the public to weigh in on this issue, which is why on December 17, 2002, the Judiciary issued a press release soliciting public comment on Rule 2.22, the proposal to make the disciplinary proceeding public 90 days after a petition is served.
The Supreme Court has extended the deadline for public comment to June 30 so that we may again ask the public to send their written comments about the proposed change to the Judiciary Public Affairs Office, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, 96813.
Marsha E. Kitagawa works in the Public Affairs Office of the Hawaii State Judiciary.