No. 28395 – Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 10:15 a.m.

GEORGE MIYASHIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.  ROEHRIG, ROEHRIG, WILSON & HARA; STANLEY H. ROEHRIG, Attorney at Law, ALC; GLENN HARA, Attorney at Law; CAROL MIYASHIRO; JEFF MIYASHIRO; TITLE GUARANTY CO.; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants-Appellees

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellant
David J. Gierlach

Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellees
Roehrig, Roehrig, Wilson & Hara, Glenn S. Hara, & Stanley H. Roehrig
Peter Van Name Esser
Keith K. Hiraoka (Roeca, Louie & Hiraoka)

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellee Stanley H. Roehrig
Brian J. De Lima (Crudele & De Lima)

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellee Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.
Diana L. Van De Car

NOTE: Order assigning Honorable Rom A. Trader, in light of the recusals filed by Nakamura, C.J., and Fujise, J., and two vacancies on the Intermediate Court of Appeals, filed 2/4/10.

COURT:  Foley and Leonard, JJ; and Circuit Judge Rom A. Trader.

SPECIAL NOTE:    The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliʻiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief description:

This appeal stems from a legal malpractice case in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (Circuit Court) in which Plaintiff-Appellant George Miyashiro (Appellant) alleged that Defendants-Appellees Stanley H. Roehrig (Roehrig), Glenn S. Hara, and Roehrig, Roehrig, Wilson & Hara (collectively, Lawyer-Appellees) conspired with members of Appellant’s family to defraud Appellant of ownership and control of a family business, Jack’s Tours, Inc.  Appellant also alleged that Defendant-Appellee Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc. (Title Guaranty) breached its fiduciary duty to deliver certain Jack’s Tours, Inc. stock certificates to Appellant.  After all claims against Glenn S. Hara and Roehrig, Roehrig, Wilson & Hara were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation and order, summary judgment was entered in favor of Roehrig and Title Guaranty and against Appellant.  In addition, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs was entered in favor of the Lawyer-Appellees and against Appellant.  On appeal, Appellant contends that the Circuit Court erred in denying, in part, his request to grant pro hac vice status to his California attorney Eugene Albertini.  In addition, Appellant argues that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Roehrig and Title Guaranty and in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to the Lawyer-Appellees.