Hawaii: Summary judgment upheld in favor of lawyer.

Link for opinion: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/opin_ord/ica/2010/jun/ica28654mop.pdf


In Chin v. Carpenter-Asui, 233 P.3d 719 (2010), the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii, affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings for a claim of legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, emotional distress and punitive damages. Chin appeals from the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and reiterates her contentions that due to Carpenter-Asui’s alleged mishandling of Chin’s marital status discrimination case against her former employer, City Bank (Chin v. City Bank, Civ. No. 03-1-0196), Chin not only lost the case but was forced to give up her right to appeal as part of an unwanted and coerced settlement. The significant component of Chin’s current appeal focuses on Carpenter-Asui’s alleged failure in the underlying action to contest City Bank’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which led to a judgment against Chin in the amount of $54, 734.60. This in turn allegedly caused Chin to ultimately decide to forgo her appeal in the underlying action in exchange for City Bank’s dropping its demand for attorney’s fees and costs.

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Carpenter-Asui submitted a detailed declaration and exhibits setting forth her actions in representing Chin in the underlying action. This declarations set forth facts establishing that Carpenter-Asui communicated with Chin on a regular and extensive basis, that she responded to and opposed several substantive motions by the City Bank defendants, and that she perfected an appeal in the underlying action from the trial court’s judgment against Chin. Absent from the record is any evidence as to whether Carpenter-Asui responded to or opposed the motion for fees and costs in the first instance, and if not, the reason for not responding or opposing it. The underlying motion for fees and costs is not in evidence in this case.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai’i 48, 56, 109 P.3d 689, 697 (2005). In responding to a summary judgment motion, see Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) 56(e) (2010).

Further significance in this case is that Chin completely failed to present any admissible evidence in responding to Carpenter-Asui’s motion for summary judgment other that a proffered letter from her psychologist purporting to document her emotional trauma from the alleged discrimination at City Bank and her failure to get vindication through the legal system. See Henderson v. Prof’l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 401, 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2727 (1983)).

The conclusion was that the summary judgment was appropriate with regard to the claims for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. With regard to the claim for emotional distress, summary judgment was appropriate as to all of Chin’s allegations except those pertaining to the handling of the underlying motion for fees and costs and whether the handling of that motion had any relation to efforts by Carpenter-Asui to settle and dismiss the underlying appeal. The remedy of punitive damages remains viable to the extent the claim for emotional distress survives.