Volcanic Ash

It’s too early to tell what will happen with Gov. Linda Lingle’s nomination of Katherine Leonard as Hawai’i’s first woman chief justice when the Senate votes on her confirmation later in the week.

But one thing that’s clear is that the last-minute anonymous hit on Leonard by the Hawai’i State Bar Association was a major act of wimpiness on the part of the lawyers.

The bar association’s 20-member executive committee voted Leonard “unqualified” Monday, but refused to say what the vote was, who voted how or what the reasons were for the negative finding.

In contrast, the American Bar Association provides a detailed written explanation of its ratings when it advises the U.S. Senate on federal judicial appointments.

HSBA President Hugh Jones said the secrecy is necessary to allow attorneys to speak freely and protect them from retaliation by judges.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi backed him up, saying, “They need to have kind of a safe haven place where attorneys can come and are free to say stuff that may be critical of a judge.”

This is nonsense. If lawyers want to play a role in judicial selection, they need to have the guts to publicly stand behind their recommendations. There is simply no place for anonymous character assassination in such important public policy decisions.

Why should these secretive deliberations be given more credence than the dozens of experienced and highly respected attorneys who have put their names behind enthusiastic endorsements of the nominee?

Who’s to say the vote didn’t reflect anonymous lawyers retaliating against a judge who ruled against them? Who’s to say the bar association’s process wasn’t politically manipulated by senators looking for cover to shoot down a key appointment of the governor from an opposing party?

The only way to silence such suspicions is to let the sunshine in.

A central rule of the courts in which these lawyers are officers is that people have a right to face their accusers. Any recommendation resulting from their spineless attempt to exempt themselves from this basic ethic lacks credibility and should be disregarded.

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Klein has thrown his enthusiastic support behind his former law clerk Katherine Leonard as Gov. Linda Lingle’s nominee to be Hawai’i’s first woman chief justice.

Klein, who was appointed to the court by former Gov. John Waihee and is now in private practice, issued a statement that he “completely and without reservation” supports her nomination and that Leonard “compares very favorably with past Chief Justices who have administered our court system.”

The statement by Klein, who presumably was interviewed as part of the administration’s vetting process, should help head off attempts by attorneys led by Eric Seitz to get the Hawai’i State Bar Association to oppose the nomination when it goes before the State Senate for confirmation.

The Hawai’i Women Lawyers and Leonard’s former law partner have also jumped to her defense in advance of a hearing Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here is Klein’s full statement:

Judge Katherine Leonard was the first law clerk I selected to assist me when I was elevated to the Hawai’i Supreme Court in 1992. She served with great distinction. I am well aware of her legal capabilities, her intellect, her demeanor, and her aloha for Hawai’i, and I completely and without reservation support her nomination as Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court. The Judicial Selection Commission has qualified Judge Leonard for the Chief Justice’s position, and by background and experience she compares very favorably with past Chief Justices who have administered our court system. I urge my fellow attorneys and citizens to support Judge Leonard’s nomination and I hope for her prompt confirmation.

The knives are starting to come out on Gov. Linda Lingle’s nomination of Katherine Leonard to be new chief justice of the state Supreme Court, but so far the cuts have only been surface wounds.

Attorney Eric Seitz struck the first public blow with a letter to the Hawaii State Bar Association urging opposition when Leonard goes before the State Senate for confirmation. He said she’s ill-equipped for the job because of poor temperament, a lack of administrative experience and only two years of judicial experience on the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

The question is whether it’s just Seitz being Seitz or if there’s broad sentiment against Leonard in the legal community as he claims.

The 400-member Hawaii Women Lawyers jumped to her defense on all points raised by Seitz, as did one of her former law partners, Karl Kobayashi, who said she displayed a sharp legal mind and good administrative skills when he worked with her at Carlsmith Ball LLP.

The Bar Association found Leonard qualified when Lingle named her to the appeals court, and a key is whether the rating is repeated on the new appointment. A recommendation is expected before the Senate Judiciary Committee holds its hearing on the nomination next Tuesday.

Senators enjoy taking a scalp from a gubernatorial nominee now and then, but it will be difficult to do so on the first woman nominated for chief justice if the Bar Association rates her qualified and she presents herself well at the Senate hearing in answering critics such as Seitz.

I have further thoughts on Lingle and the Leonard nomination in my column in today’s Star-Advertiser, “Judicial appointments will define Lingle’s legacy.”