Choosing the right Hawaii personal injury lawyer is one of the most important decisions a client will make when seeking compensation for injuries.
If you are searching for a personal injury lawyer in Hawaii, there are certain factors you should look for to make sure that you choose the personal injury lawyer that is right for you:

Select an attorney that is experienced with personal injury cases. By choosing a lawyer that is experienced in personal injury claims, you can be sure that he or she they will know how to handle your case. Not all attorneys are familiar with the nuances associated with civil litigation and personal injuries.

Select a lawyer with an effective track record. Make sure your attorney is capable of taking your case to trial. Not all personal injury attorneys are trial attorneys. I believe that the best way to obtain compensation for your injuries is to prepare your case for trial. If the defense attorney does not respect your counsel (and understand that you are ready and willing to go to trial), they will likely not negotiate in good faith.

Your personal injury lawyer should have many years of experience handling a wide variety of cases.

Select a personal injury lawyer that is in good standing with the Hawaii bar. You can visit the Hawaii State Bar Association (www.hsba.org) to confirm that the attorney you are considering is in good standing.

Make sure your attorney has malpractice insurance. It is your right to know whether your attorney has adequate malpractice insurance. If you ask your potential attorney whether he has this insurance, and he refuses to respond, simply hire another attorney.

Make sure that your personal injury attorney will take control of your compensation requests. Accident victims need time to heal. They should not be distracted by the “red tape” generated by the medical insurance industry. Your personal injury attorney should be ready and willing to assist you with these issues or you should hire a different attorney.

Finally, you should trust your attorney. The attorney client relationship is the same as any other personal relationship in the sense that there must be complete candor if it is to succeed. Tell your attorney what you are seeking and ask him or her if that is a realistic goal. And be skeptical of attorneys who are willing to promise you extraordinary results in your first meeting. Ask tough questions and listen to the responses. If your potential attorney is the right person for the job, he or she should certainly be able to respond clearly and honestly to your questions.

Good luck.

My April 10, 2007 blog entry concerns the acting career of our Office Manager, Warren Fabro. In the summer of 2006, Warren appeared in a major supporting role to Richard Chamberlain in the Hawaii Opera Theatre's fine production of The King and I (which played to sold out audiences at the Neal Blaisdell Concert Hall). I was very excited to learn that Warren was recently cast in a supporting role in Hawaii Opera Theatre’s production of Rodger and Hammerstein’s South Pacific which opens in late July, 2007. We can all look forward to another fine production from Warren and Hawaii Opera Theatre this summer.

I am also proud of one of my legal assistants, who recently began her “television career.” Jennifer Brantley volunteers as the Fundraising Manager for a non-profit organization called HonoluluMommies.com (“HM”), a local chapter of The Mommies Network. This group is an online community that provides free support to all moms, regardless of age, working or marital status. On June 21, 2007, Jennifer appeared on the KHNL’s Morning Show to discuss HM’s fundraiser, The Mother of All Chases, which takes place on June 23, 2007. Portions of the funds raised will be used for HM’s charitable events, as well as fund newly created educational seminars for its members. A portion of the proceeds will also be used by The Mommies Network to ensure that members will continue to receive its excellent services for free.

In my April 10, 2007 blog, I wrote that Warren Fabro was the “real star of our office.” I am happy that Jennifer Brantley will now be acting in a “supporting role.”

A friend recently asked for advice for a young person graduating from law school. I did my best to provide these thoughts:

This is just the start of your career. Don't get discouraged if it doesn't begin exactly like you thought that it would. When I was a young associate in NY City, I would think to myself, "I took out all of these student loans just to become a lawyer, and now I spend my life working as a lawyer just to pay off my student loans." However, as time passed, and my career blossomed, I became very thankful that I took out (and have now paid off) those student loans.

True, I still spend most of my days in an office or in court (while a few lucky people are enjoying the sun). And admittedly, my dream job was not to be a lawyer (but who really has their dream job). I mean the Los Angeles Dodgers already have a coach, and I don't think that the Dodgers would be considering me even if they needed a new one. I was born to a middle class family and was destined to work my entire life.

So, if I was to live a happy, fulfilling life as a lawyer, I knew that I was the only one who could make that happen for me. In 1997, I started my own law practice and have been in business ever since. I run the office the way that I believe a law office should be run. I make sure that my staff is happy. I am proud of my work. And I couldn't have owned my own office right out of law school. Especially, doing the variety of cases that we handle. All of the work that I did for those large law firms, prepared me for the work that I do in my office in Hawaii.

The moral is that this is just the start of your journey. The job you currently have is not necessarily where you will end up. My journey began in giant law firms in NY and Virginia and, in 22 years, took me to my own office in Hawaii. Attorneys have to find the practice in which they feel most comfortable. Some attorneys like big firms, other like small firms. Some people thrive doing criminal law, while others would be miserable. Each new lawyer must look within herself and decide what she needs in life to be fulfilled, and then go for it.

Above all, strive to be happy. And when you find happy, don't try too hard to improve on happy. In fact, don't mess with happy.

Occassionally, individual defendants try to hide assets by placing them in a corporation. In such cases, the attorney is forced to attempt to "pierce the corporate veil". The rule at common law was that, "officers, directors or shareholders of a corporation are not personally liable for the tortious conduct of the corporation or its other agents, unless there can be found some active or passive participation in such wrongful conduct by such persons." Cahill v. Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., 56 Haw. 522, 526 (1975). However, in 1973, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a “corporate entity should be disregarded because of circumstances that reveal that the shareholders treated and regarded the corporation as their alter ego.” Kahili, Inc. v. Yamamoto, 54 Haw. 267, 271 (1973). This exception has since been called the “piercing the corporate veil” doctrine because it permits officers, directors, or shareholder to be found personally liable for their actions regardless of the general rule at common law.

There are two overarching elements required by most jurisdictions (including Hawai’i) to pierce the corporate veil. Id. First, there must be evidence that an individual in a corporation “treated and regarded the corporation” as his/her “alter ego”, and “using the corporation as an agency or instrumentality or a conduit through which they were conducted his/her personal business.” Kahili, Inc. at 271. Second, the circumstances must indicate that “recognition of the fictional corporation” would sanction a fraud or promote “injustice and inequity”. Id.

There are many factors to consider in determining whether “the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist” thus satisfying the first element of piercing the corporate veil. Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., Inc., 26 Cal.Rptr. 806, 813-815 (Cal., 1962) cited by Murdock v. Ventures Trident II (Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d) 2003 WL 21246596. Generally, courts in Hawai’i have allowed for piercing of the corporate veil when there are enough factors satisfied to show that there were no separate identities between the corporation and an individual. For example, the Hawaii Supreme Court allowed for the “piercing of the corporate veil” when; (1) two shareholders owned all stock, (2) corporation was undercapitalized, and (3) shareholders' behavior in lease negotiations suggested they were acting for their behalf rather than for the corporation. Kahili, Inc. at 269-272.

As mentioned, it is important to also provide evidence that will convince the court that if it does not pierce the corporate veil, inequity and injustice or fraud will prevail. For example, if there is evidence that an individual was “manipulating the corporation” to “foster” her individual interests to the disadvantage of other members of her corporation, then it is only fair that she be found liable (personally) for her actions rather than the corporation. Riddle at 112. Furthermore, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that evidence that an individual used the corporation to commit fraud or another illegal act constitutes promoting inequity and injustice therefore justifies piercing of the corporate veil. Chung v Animal Clinic Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 646-647 (1981). Finally, actual fraud does not need to be shown, just that by “piercing of the corporate veil” the Court will prevent fraud or injustice. Associated Vendors, Inc. at 813.

Last month we received an arbitration award and judgment in excess of Six Million Dollars, against a mainland contractor on behalf of a mainland couple victimized while building their dream home on the island of Kauai. We persuaded the Arbitrator to award our clients treble damages pursuant to H.R.S. 480-2, the Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In awarding treble damages, the Arbitrator found that the contractor committed several Unfair and Deceptive Acts including the following:

a. At the time of the creation of the Agreement, the Contractors represented that they were licensed contractors. They were not.

b. Contractors collected $434,702.40 in unsubstantiated payments. The action of requesting payment for work that was not performed is both “unfair” and “deceptive.”

c. Contractors represented to the homebuilders that they would retain qualified subcontractors and staff the project with craftsmen qualified to construct a residence of this size and magnitude. Contractors did not.

d. Representing that the Kauai House would be built like a specific Scottsdale, Arizona Home that had been viewed by our clients, and that materials and craftsmen used on the Scottsdale Home would be used on the Kauai House. They were not.

e. Contractors did not disclose all information required under H.R.S. § 444-25.5 (Supp.2000) which is a per se violation of H.R.S. § 480-2.

In addition, the Arbitrator found that since an individual contractor acted in his personal capacity, he was “jointly and severally liable with the corporation.”

Obviously, we are very proud of the work that we performed to obtain this award for our clients.