We are very proud to announce that attorney Effie Steiger has passed the Hawaii bar. Effie is already a member of the Nevada bar and moved home to Honolulu this past summer. We are very excited to have Effie working with us. Like everyone else in this office, the focus of Effie's practice will be Civil litigation, primarily commercial and real estate litigation.

Congratulations Effie. We expect great things from you in the future.

A case is started by filing by a Complaint. The party filing the Complaint is called the Plaintiff. In certain cases, a Plaintiff may decide to change his initial Complaint. There are many possible reasons that a Plaintiff may change or “amend” the Complaint (ie. the discovery of new evidence, a change in law, or even correcting a simple mistake). Hawaii Courts have specific rules for amending a Complaint. A Plaintiff may amend her Complaint once any time before an Answer or “responsive pleading” is served. Haw. R. Civ. P.15(a). However, if the amendment is sought after the Answer is filed, the Plaintiff must either obtain (i) written consent from the opposing party or (ii) permission from the Court.

Fortunately, that permission or “leave", as it is referred to in the rules, is to be "freely given when justice so requires.” Haw. R. Civ. P.15(a). See also Hirasa v. Burtner, 68 Haw. 22, 26, 702 P.2d 772, 775 (1985) (stating same). A request for leave to amend may be made at any time. Kahalepauole v. Associates Four, 8 Haw. App. 7, 14, 791 P.2d 720, 724 (1990). Moreover, it is appropriate to grant the requested leave so long as there has been no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, nor undue prejudice to the non-moving party. Bishop Trust Co. v. Kamokila Dev. Corp., 57 Haw. 330, 337, 555 P.2d 1193, 1198 (1976).

Both State and Federal Courts have recognized the generous standard in Rule 15 (a). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that the policy of favoring amendments should be applied with “extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 644 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The purpose of this policy is primarily because the Courts favor giving a Plaintiff the opportunity to “test his claim on the merits” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In other words, a party should be given his "day in Court", rather than limiting Plaintiffs claims through overly restrictive pleading rules.

On October 1, 2007, we celebrated the ten year anniversary of the opening of this law office. When I was working as an associate for a New York law firm, it was my dream to open my own boutique office. This office is the culmination of that dream. Of course, when I was practicing law in New York City, I never imagined that twenty years later my boutique office would be in Honolulu, Hawaii. For this fact, I am especially thankful.

I am also grateful for my friend and office manager, Warren Fabro. Warren started this office with me in 1997, and has been working with me since the Bank of America litigation with the late David Schutter, Esq.. I am thankful to Warren, both for his friendship and hard work. I know that my personal success is, in large part, the result of our collective effort. As we approach our second decade, this office will continue to provide excellent, personalized service to our clients. Although we will grow in the next ten years, this office will remain near its current size, since I intend to be actively involved in all of my clients’ cases.

Finally, I wish to thank all of the clients who trusted me to handle their affairs during the first ten years of this office. I know that there are many options available to you in my profession. I am always humbled by the faith that you place in me. I look forward to working with you all in the next decade.