Gov. David Ige has approved a final payment to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to cover lawyers’ fees in a lawsuit the newspaper filed to force former Gov. Neil Abercrombie to disclose the names of nominees for appointments as state judges.

That payment of $45,000 will close out a nearly four-year legal battle that cost state taxpayers a total of $115,272 after Abercrombie, a Democrat, refused to release the names of the applicants to become judges.

Abercrombie’s decision to withhold those names was at odds with the past practices of both Republican former Gov. Linda Lingle and Democratic former Gov. Ben Cayetano, who both released the names on Judicial Selection Commission candidate lists used to make appointments.

The newspaper sued to obtain the nominees’ names, and Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled on Nov. 14, 2011, that Abercrombie was required to make the names public under Hawaii’s open records law.

Officially known as the Uniform Information Practices Act, or UIPA, the state open records law dictates that government documents are presumed to be public unless the government demonstrates a compelling reason to withhold them.

Abercrombie had argued that releasing the names of unsuccessful applicants to be appointed as judges would discourage people from applying. However, Sakamoto ruled the administration never provided any proof of that.

In the wake of that ruling, Abercrombie released the names of the nominees, and the Judicial Selection Commission amended its rules so that applicants’ names are now made public when they are sent to the governor.

However, the state administration later launched a new court fight to resist paying lawyers’ fees and court costs claimed by the newspaper in the case.

That drawn-out dispute over fees was appealed twice to the state Intermediate Court of Appeals and once to the state Supreme Court in proceedings that added $45,000 to the fees the state finally agreed to pay in the case.

Dennis Francis, president and publisher of the Star-Advertiser, said the newspaper is pleased the litigation has finally concluded.

"When we filed suit in August 2011 to compel the governor to make public the names presented him by the Judicial Selection Commission, it seemed to be a straightforward case that could be resolved fairly quickly," Francis said.

Although the newspaper quickly won on the merits of the case, the long dispute over fees raises new concerns "because most individuals do not have the time and/or money to pursue a case like this on their own," he said.

"The Star-Advertiser was able to see this through to the end, even while the governor ordered appeals that delayed the outcome. But the state’s reaction to our suit is bound to give pause to those who might think about pursuing open records in government on their own," Francis said.

State lawmakers in 2014 approved a payment of $70,272.66 to cover the newspaper’s initial costs leading up to Sakamoto’s 2011 ruling, and this year lawmakers appropriated another $45,000 to cover most of the newspaper’s costs during the appeal process. Ige signed the bill authorizing that final payment this week.

Robert Thomas, an attorney with Damon Key Leong Kupchak and Hastert, which represented the newspaper in the case, said the UIPA allows people who successfully sue to make government records public to recover their lawyers’ fees and court costs. Thomas said he never believed the appeal by the state was worthwhile.

"I thought this case should have been resolved years ago and been put in the past, but for whatever reason they dug their heels in, and this is how it ended up," Thomas said. "I think it’s really unfortunate that the taxpayer had to pick up the tab for this."

Abercrombie said Thursday that he remains convinced the law clearly allowed him to withhold the names of nominees, and also remains convinced that keeping the names confidential is necessary to get the best applicants. Sakamoto’s ruling was incorrect, Abercrombie said, but he dropped his appeal because the Judicial Selection Commission undercut his argument by changing its rules and releasing the names of nominees on its own. That action by the commission made Abercrombie’s argument moot, he said.

As for the dispute over fees, Abercrombie said that aspect of the case was handled by the state attorney general’s office.

"The state has every right, and in fact an obligation, to explore whether or not it owes any funds to anybody," Abercrombie said. "The attorney general works for the people of the state of Hawaii and is obligated by law to see to it that taxpayer dollars are protected. And if that involves going to court, and if that involves a ruling that comes ultimately against us, it’s because we were trying to protect the public interest, and not merely trying to carry out the wishes of a private client."