Hawaii State Bar
Jurisprudence and
Ethics: Elite Mastery
Protocol
PART 0: THE NAVIGATOR
● Tier 1 (Questions 1–28) - Foundational Syntax & Application: Hard Deck definitions
covering HRPC 1.5, 1.15, and Disciplinary Board Formal Opinions (FO 45, FO 46, FO
50).
● Tier 2 (Questions 29–58) - Complex Application & Simulation: Variable changes in
trust accounting, credit card commingling, the 2026 rule amendments, and fee-splitting
mechanics.
● Tier 3 (Questions 59–88) - Grandmaster Synthesis: High-stakes scenarios involving
ODC jurisdiction, multi-tiered conflicts, reciprocal discipline, and Rule 2.13 immediate
restraints.
PART I: THE PRIMER
Mastering this specific test bank translates directly to elite professional performance by forging
an immaculate understanding of fiduciary boundaries, shielding practitioners from career-ending
disciplinary actions in the jurisdiction of Hawai'i. This document enforces the rigid synthesis of
the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC)
mandates, preparing the scholar for the most complex ethical dilemmas encountered in top-tier
practice.
The Fiduciary Firewall and Trust Accounting Mechanics
The management of client funds in Hawai'i requires absolute precision. Commingling is
fundamentally prohibited under HRPC 1.15, with very few narrow exceptions. One such
exception allows an attorney to deposit a limited amount of personal funds into a Client Trust
Account exclusively to cover bank service charges. However, the intricacies of modern financial
transactions, specifically credit card processing, introduce severe ethical traps.
According to Formal Opinion No. 45 (FO 45), an attorney is explicitly prohibited from using
"holding" or "clearing" accounts that commingle retainers, flat fees, and earned fees before
distribution. To process credit card payments without violating HRPC 1.15, the attorney must
employ one of three rigid architectures: using a banking institution capable of directing funds to
,designated accounts automatically (Bank Direction), maintaining entirely separate merchant
processing plans for trust and operating accounts (Separate Credit Card Plans), or limiting
credit card acceptance to exclusively one category of fees (Restricted Acceptance). If credit
card transaction charges are deducted from a trust account, and the client has not provided
advance consent to absorb these costs, the attorney is strictly liable to deposit personal funds to
cover the bank charges to prevent the invasion of other clients' funds.
The Evolution of Fee Mechanics: Flat Fees and Referrals
The economic structuring of legal representation is heavily scrutinized. Under HRPC 1.5(c), any
flat fee arrangement exceeding 1,500 must be documented in a signed writing. This agreement
cannot label the fee as "non-refundable" or "earned upon receipt," and it must delineate the
scope of services, the total amount, and the precise milestones or hourly rates by which the fee
is incrementally earned. Unearned portions must remain in the trust account, and early
termination requires a mathematically sound refund of any unearned capital.
Fee Type Threshold / Constraint Ethical Mandate
Flat Fee > 1,500 Signed writing required; explicit
milestones; held in trust until
earned.
Flat Fee \le 1,500
Referral Fee (Lawyer) Proportionality & Joint Hawai'i prohibits "pure referral
Responsibility fees." Division must reflect
actual work and joint liability.
Referral Fee (Non-Lawyer) Absolute Prohibition Governed by FO 46.
Constitutes a non-waivable
HRPC 1.7(a) conflict of interest.
Hawai'i distinguishes itself from many jurisdictions regarding fee-splitting between attorneys in
different firms. Under HRPC 1.5(f), a fee division is only permissible if it is both in proportion to
the services performed and each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. An
attorney performing purely administrative intake cannot ethically claim a standard one-third
contingency split. Furthermore, Formal Opinion No. 46 (FO 46) establishes an absolute
prohibition on accepting referral fees from non-lawyer professionals (such as realtors or
investment advisors). The Disciplinary Board categorizes this as a concurrent conflict of interest
under HRPC 1.7(a) that destroys independent professional judgment, and critically, this conflict
cannot be cured by client disclosure or consent.
### Disciplinary Jurisprudence: The 2025-2026 Case Review
The Hawai'i Supreme Court exercises surgical precision when applying the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH) to attorney misconduct. The divergence in
outcomes between recent high-profile cases illustrates the nuanced application of RSCH Rule
2.13 regarding immediate interim restraints.
Attorney Disciplinary Action Date Core Misconduct &
Judicial Reasoning
Donna Y.L. Leong Restraint Denied Sep 2025 Pled guilty to a
misdemeanor
conspiracy to deprive
rights (bypassing city
council for a payout).
, Attorney Disciplinary Action Date Core Misconduct &
Judicial Reasoning
The Court denied
interim restraint
because the factual
basis of the plea lacked
the element of
"dishonesty or false
statement".
Gary Charles Zamber Immediate Restraint Jul 2025 Convicted of honest
services wire fraud and
bribery related to an
affordable housing
scheme. Conduct
fundamentally violated
fiduciary honesty,
triggering immediate
suspension.
Paul J. Sulla Immediate Restraint Jul 2025 Convicted alongside
Zamber for honest
services wire fraud and
money laundering.
Derwin Hayashi Resignation Dec 2025 Allowed to resign in lieu
of discipline,
terminating
authorization to
practice.
Steven D. Strauss Suspension Feb 2026 Imposed by Supreme
Court order.
The Leong decision serves as a critical axiom: a criminal conviction does not trigger automatic
interim restraint unless the underlying conduct inherently involves deceitfulness or
untrustworthiness. Violating procedural due process (willful bypass of an ordinance) without
deceptive intent does not meet the "dishonesty" threshold for immediate restraint prior to a
formal Disciplinary Board adjudication.
The Volunteer Safe Harbor and Recent Amendments
To promote access to justice, Formal Opinion No. 50 (FO 50) addresses attorneys operating in
Access to Justice Rooms or Law Day tables. Recognizing the impossibility of standard conflict
checks in these environments, HRPC 6.5 modifies standard conflict rules. A volunteer attorney
is only disqualified if they possess actual knowledge of a conflict. However, FO 50 draws a
sharp line between providing legal information (which does not form an attorney-client
relationship) and legal advice (which triggers HRPC 1.6 confidentiality and limited-scope
representation requirements under HRPC 1.2).
Furthermore, the Hawai'i Supreme Court implemented sweeping amendments filed on July 9,
2025, effective January 1, 2026, updating HRPC Rules 1.2, 1.8, 1.10, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 3.4, 4.2,
Jurisprudence and
Ethics: Elite Mastery
Protocol
PART 0: THE NAVIGATOR
● Tier 1 (Questions 1–28) - Foundational Syntax & Application: Hard Deck definitions
covering HRPC 1.5, 1.15, and Disciplinary Board Formal Opinions (FO 45, FO 46, FO
50).
● Tier 2 (Questions 29–58) - Complex Application & Simulation: Variable changes in
trust accounting, credit card commingling, the 2026 rule amendments, and fee-splitting
mechanics.
● Tier 3 (Questions 59–88) - Grandmaster Synthesis: High-stakes scenarios involving
ODC jurisdiction, multi-tiered conflicts, reciprocal discipline, and Rule 2.13 immediate
restraints.
PART I: THE PRIMER
Mastering this specific test bank translates directly to elite professional performance by forging
an immaculate understanding of fiduciary boundaries, shielding practitioners from career-ending
disciplinary actions in the jurisdiction of Hawai'i. This document enforces the rigid synthesis of
the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC)
mandates, preparing the scholar for the most complex ethical dilemmas encountered in top-tier
practice.
The Fiduciary Firewall and Trust Accounting Mechanics
The management of client funds in Hawai'i requires absolute precision. Commingling is
fundamentally prohibited under HRPC 1.15, with very few narrow exceptions. One such
exception allows an attorney to deposit a limited amount of personal funds into a Client Trust
Account exclusively to cover bank service charges. However, the intricacies of modern financial
transactions, specifically credit card processing, introduce severe ethical traps.
According to Formal Opinion No. 45 (FO 45), an attorney is explicitly prohibited from using
"holding" or "clearing" accounts that commingle retainers, flat fees, and earned fees before
distribution. To process credit card payments without violating HRPC 1.15, the attorney must
employ one of three rigid architectures: using a banking institution capable of directing funds to
,designated accounts automatically (Bank Direction), maintaining entirely separate merchant
processing plans for trust and operating accounts (Separate Credit Card Plans), or limiting
credit card acceptance to exclusively one category of fees (Restricted Acceptance). If credit
card transaction charges are deducted from a trust account, and the client has not provided
advance consent to absorb these costs, the attorney is strictly liable to deposit personal funds to
cover the bank charges to prevent the invasion of other clients' funds.
The Evolution of Fee Mechanics: Flat Fees and Referrals
The economic structuring of legal representation is heavily scrutinized. Under HRPC 1.5(c), any
flat fee arrangement exceeding 1,500 must be documented in a signed writing. This agreement
cannot label the fee as "non-refundable" or "earned upon receipt," and it must delineate the
scope of services, the total amount, and the precise milestones or hourly rates by which the fee
is incrementally earned. Unearned portions must remain in the trust account, and early
termination requires a mathematically sound refund of any unearned capital.
Fee Type Threshold / Constraint Ethical Mandate
Flat Fee > 1,500 Signed writing required; explicit
milestones; held in trust until
earned.
Flat Fee \le 1,500
Referral Fee (Lawyer) Proportionality & Joint Hawai'i prohibits "pure referral
Responsibility fees." Division must reflect
actual work and joint liability.
Referral Fee (Non-Lawyer) Absolute Prohibition Governed by FO 46.
Constitutes a non-waivable
HRPC 1.7(a) conflict of interest.
Hawai'i distinguishes itself from many jurisdictions regarding fee-splitting between attorneys in
different firms. Under HRPC 1.5(f), a fee division is only permissible if it is both in proportion to
the services performed and each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. An
attorney performing purely administrative intake cannot ethically claim a standard one-third
contingency split. Furthermore, Formal Opinion No. 46 (FO 46) establishes an absolute
prohibition on accepting referral fees from non-lawyer professionals (such as realtors or
investment advisors). The Disciplinary Board categorizes this as a concurrent conflict of interest
under HRPC 1.7(a) that destroys independent professional judgment, and critically, this conflict
cannot be cured by client disclosure or consent.
### Disciplinary Jurisprudence: The 2025-2026 Case Review
The Hawai'i Supreme Court exercises surgical precision when applying the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH) to attorney misconduct. The divergence in
outcomes between recent high-profile cases illustrates the nuanced application of RSCH Rule
2.13 regarding immediate interim restraints.
Attorney Disciplinary Action Date Core Misconduct &
Judicial Reasoning
Donna Y.L. Leong Restraint Denied Sep 2025 Pled guilty to a
misdemeanor
conspiracy to deprive
rights (bypassing city
council for a payout).
, Attorney Disciplinary Action Date Core Misconduct &
Judicial Reasoning
The Court denied
interim restraint
because the factual
basis of the plea lacked
the element of
"dishonesty or false
statement".
Gary Charles Zamber Immediate Restraint Jul 2025 Convicted of honest
services wire fraud and
bribery related to an
affordable housing
scheme. Conduct
fundamentally violated
fiduciary honesty,
triggering immediate
suspension.
Paul J. Sulla Immediate Restraint Jul 2025 Convicted alongside
Zamber for honest
services wire fraud and
money laundering.
Derwin Hayashi Resignation Dec 2025 Allowed to resign in lieu
of discipline,
terminating
authorization to
practice.
Steven D. Strauss Suspension Feb 2026 Imposed by Supreme
Court order.
The Leong decision serves as a critical axiom: a criminal conviction does not trigger automatic
interim restraint unless the underlying conduct inherently involves deceitfulness or
untrustworthiness. Violating procedural due process (willful bypass of an ordinance) without
deceptive intent does not meet the "dishonesty" threshold for immediate restraint prior to a
formal Disciplinary Board adjudication.
The Volunteer Safe Harbor and Recent Amendments
To promote access to justice, Formal Opinion No. 50 (FO 50) addresses attorneys operating in
Access to Justice Rooms or Law Day tables. Recognizing the impossibility of standard conflict
checks in these environments, HRPC 6.5 modifies standard conflict rules. A volunteer attorney
is only disqualified if they possess actual knowledge of a conflict. However, FO 50 draws a
sharp line between providing legal information (which does not form an attorney-client
relationship) and legal advice (which triggers HRPC 1.6 confidentiality and limited-scope
representation requirements under HRPC 1.2).
Furthermore, the Hawai'i Supreme Court implemented sweeping amendments filed on July 9,
2025, effective January 1, 2026, updating HRPC Rules 1.2, 1.8, 1.10, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 3.4, 4.2,
