The Hawaii State Bar Association rated Circuit Judge Michael Wilson "unqualified" for the state Supreme Court because of concerns about his work ethic, professionalism, the propriety of his conduct toward professional women, and his ability to serve at the level of the state’s highest court.
Gregory Markham, the president-elect of the bar association, explained the reasons in a letter on Wednesday to the state Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee.
Markham had previously declined to publicly discuss the reasons behind the negative rating, citing the confidentiality of the bar association’s rating process.
But Sen. Clayton Hee, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee, pointed the bar association to a January 2011 article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that outlined revisions that the bar had made to the process after previous criticism from the Senate about secrecy.
The bar association conducted further research, according to Patricia Mau-Shimizu, its executive director, and determined that the bar did have the flexibility to release additional information. The rule change allows the bar’s president, with the support of the board of directors, to disclose the range of criteria that influenced the rating, although not more specific reasons.
The Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee voted unanimously last week to recommend Wilson’s confirmation as associate justice to the Supreme Court after rejecting the bar association’s "unqualified" rating. The full Senate is expected to vote by next week.
Hee (D, Heeia-Laie-Waialua) said on Wednesday that the new information from the bar association does not change his view on Wilson.
"In my opinion, it’s an indictment absent of facts," Hee said. "And it’s a really sad commentary on lawyers. It really is. For Greg Markham to put this out and indict Mike Wilson without any facts whatsoever is really a sad statement for the Hawaii State Bar Association."
Wilson could not be reached for comment.
Other senators had said during Wilson’s confirmation hearing that it would have been helpful to at least know some of reasons that led to the bar association’s negative rating.
Sen. Les Ihara (D, Moiliili-Kaimuki-Palolo), one of the senators on the committee who was critical of the bar’s rating process, said Wednesday after reading the new information that he would like to know whether the bar vetted the negative comments about Wilson.
"Basically, did they do their due diligence?" Ihara asked. "Does this mean they found these complaints valid?"
Markham and other attorneys have said that confidentiality is essential to the bar’s rating process because it encourages candor and protects attorneys and their clients from retaliation by judges who receive negative ratings.
But the bar revised its rules in December 2010 to allow for greater disclosure after criticism from the Senate over an "unqualified" rating for Katherine Leonard, a judge on the Intermediate Court of Appeals who was nominated by Gov. Linda Lingle as chief justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate had rejected Leonard’s nomination and some senators had cited the bar’s negative rating as a factor.
"The flexibility in providing more information to the confirming authority on a particular rating may alleviate the tension that could otherwise arise," according to a Hawaii Bar Journal article about the revised procedure.
Markham told the Senate on Wednesday that the "unqualified" rating for Wilson "was based on negative comments from a number of bar members regarding work ethic concerns, lack of professionalism in the workplace, questions concerning the propriety of conduct toward women in professional contexts, and the ability to serve at the level of a Supreme Court justice."
