Hawaii Lawyer Breached Duty to Act in a Diligent Manner when Representing a Client

In the case Denham v. Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaii 2009), the Hawaii District Court awarded damages to the defendant, Hawaiian Electric Company for the lack of diligence by the attorney for the Plaintiff, Denham. The counsel for Denham failed to act with a duty of diligence in keeping up with depositions throughout the case. The individual’s failure to act resulted in recklessness and gross negligence.

The Hawaiian District Court confirmed that the lawyer knowingly allowed the discovery deadline to pass and therefore failed to act with diligence and was in violation of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3.

The lawyer not only failed to act with diligence one time, but on several occasions. The lawyer waited six months until after the initial discovery deadline passed before he requested depositions. After the judge granted an extension, the lawyer knowingly allowed the discovery deadline to pass and after another two months, he filed a motion requesting to take depositions due to an excessive workload. The lawyer violated Hawaii Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 and therefore the defendant was awarded attorney fees and costs. See also Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2001).

This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty to act with diligence under the Hawaii Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 which states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”