Create a case brief...In the case of Bank of Hawaii v. Kunimoto, 984 P.2d 1198 (Haw. 1999), counsel for the defendant in a bank- ruptcy judgment went into receivership; creditors were looking for payment on the $1.6 million judgment. The receiver requested, properly, financial informa- tion and an accounting of all assets either currently or previously owned. In an attempt to protect their client, the attorneys withheld certain stock issuance information that they alleged was not relevant because it had been transferred to the defendant's father years before. However, counsel knew that the receiver

self, not just at his "suggestion." For example, in the case of Bank of Hawaii v. Kunimoto, 984 P.2d 1198 (Haw. 1999), counsel for the defendant in a bankruptcy judgment went into receivership; creditors were looking for payment on the $1.6 million judgment. The receiver requested, properly, financial information and an accounting of all assets either currently or previously owned. In an attempt to protect their client, the attorneys withheld certain stock issuance information that they alleged was not relevant because it had been transferred to the defendant's father years before. However, counsel knew that the receiver was entitled to the information and the court had ordered the defendant's father and sister to testify in court as to the stock. Despite this, counsel accepted the transfer of title of the stock in question to their firm in purported payment for legal fees and then, still aware that the court and receiver were interested in this stock, the firm sold it to liquidate the asset and kept the proceeds. The Court found that counsel "recklessly or knowingly deceived the Court, withheld material, responsive information and documents regarding the CPB stock, and recklessly or knowingly disregarded, if not the letter, then certainly the spirit of Court orders and Court proceedings regarding the CPB stock." Id. at 386. The court ordered the disgorgement of the $90,000 from the sale to the receiver. In addition, counsel, who were acting under a limited admission to the Hawai'i bar (pro hac vice), were ordered to disclose the fact that their status was terminated in this matter and to give the reasons for their termination should they ever apply to any court in Hawai'i again. An attorney or a paralegal who engages in this type of dishonest conduct, offering false or falsified evidence, is not fit to practice. An attomey and a paralegal must remain loyal first to the proper functioning of the justice system, and secondly, to their client. In an attempt to "get the heat off his client," an attorney had false bills of sale witnessed by another one of his clients after he noticed that the witness line was left blank for stolen equipment. He then submitted them to the court as proof that his client was not acting as a "fence" in the subsequent sale of the goods. Digging himself deeper, the attorney testified at his grievance hearing that he was unaware, at the time he prepared the receipts, that the equipment was stolen. An unlikely story, given that he previously had defended this client on larceny charges. The attorney's violation by altering and/or creating false evidence in violation of the subsequent subsection is regarded as the most serious kind of misconduct. Fundamental honesty is the base line and mandatory requirement to serve in the legal profession. The whole structure of ethical standards is derived from the paramount need for lawyers to be trustworthy. The court system and the public we serve are damaged when our officers play fast and loose with the truth. The damage occurs without regard to whether misleading conduct is motivated by the client's interest or the lawyer's own