Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 605
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 605-1 (2026)

  Attorneys, qualifications

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §605-1  Attorneys, qualifications.  (a)  The supreme court may examine, admit, and reinstate as practitioners in the courts of the State, such persons as it may find qualified for that purpose, who have taken the prescribed oath of office.  The supreme court shall have the sole power to revoke or suspend the license of any such practitioner.

     (b)  In order to be licensed by the supreme court, a person shall be of good moral character, and shall satisfy such residence and other requirements as the supreme court may prescribe.

     (c)  In addition to other qualifications for licensure and conditions for continuing eligibility to hold a license, applicants for licensure, licensees renewing their licenses, and existing licensees shall be in compliance with an order of support as defined in section 576D-1 and has not failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a paternity or child support hearing. [CC 1859, §1065; am L 1921, c 81, §1; RL 1925, §2304; RL 1935, §3603; am L 1937, c 173, §1; RL 1945, §9701; am L 1945, c 226, §1; am L Sp 1949, c 67, §1; RL 1955, §217-1; HRS §605-1; am L 1972, c 184, §1(a); am L 1976, c 76, §1; am L 1997, c 293, §46; am L 2002, c 226, §9; am L 2003, c 133, §13; am L 2019, c 279, §8]

 

Rules of Court

 

  See RSC rules 1, 2; Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.

  Child support enforcement, see RSC rules 1.3(h), 17.1.

  Disciplinary proceedings, see Disciplinary Board Rules.

  Dishonest conduct, fund for client protection, see RSC rule 10.

  Foreign law consultants, see RSC rule 14.

  Substance abuse, illness, or infirmity, assistance program, see RSC rule 16.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  On the matter of lawyers appearing before government agencies, see The Lawyer-Legislator and the Canons of Ethics.  1 HBJ, no. 1, at 11 (1959).

  For discussion of residence qualification, see The New Resident:  Hawaii's Second-Class Citizen.  5 HBJ, no. 3, at 77 (1968).

  The Forgotten Case:  Preventing Attorney Neglect.  13 HBJ, no. 2, at 11 (1977).

  Student Symposium; Legal Malpractice.  14 HBJ, no. 1, at 3 (1978).

  Bringing an End to a Scandal.  15 HBJ, no. 1, at 3 (1980).

  Overview of the Hawaii Attorney Discipline System.  22 HBJ, no. 2, at 83 (1980).

  Ke Kanawai Mamalahoe:  Equality in Our Splintered Profession.  33 UH L. Rev. 249 (2010).

 

Case Notes

 

  Attorney shall not be employed in matter in which attorney had substantial responsibility while public employee.  397 F. Supp. 1314 (1975).

  Power to regulate conduct of attorneys cannot be used to infringe constitutional rights.  397 F. Supp. 1314 (1975).

  No conflict between section and disciplinary procedure under Sup. Ct. rule 16.  46 H. 404, 380 P.2d 751 (1963).

  Supreme court has inherent power to integrate the bar, establishing compulsory membership and payment of dues.  50 H. 107, 432 P.2d 887 (1967).

  Statements to the chief justice or to the supreme court's rule 16 committee or to the bar association's ethics committee concerning attorney's unethical conduct are absolutely privileged.  51 H. 608, 466 P.2d 441 (1970).

  Attorney is held to the same ethical standards when acting as a business person or as an attorney and is subject to disciplinary action if attorney fails to maintain those standards in either capacity.  55 H. 47, 515 P.2d 400 (1973).

  Supreme court has jurisdiction over matters concerning disciplinary action of members of the bar.  55 H. 47, 515 P.2d 400 (1973).

  It is the court's duty to discipline attorneys who indulge in practices inconsistent with high ethical standards.  60 H. 546, 592 P.2d 814 (1979).

  Suspension for conduct involving funds of clients undergoing bankruptcy.  61 H. 334, 603 P.2d 562 (1979).

  Disciplinary sanction for neglect of clients' cases; mitigating factors.  63 H. 150, 622 P.2d 115 (1981).

  Bar examination, foreign attorneys.  44 H. 26, 352 P.2d 607 (1959); 44 H. 90, 352 P.2d 610 (1960); 44 H. 597, 358 P.2d 709 (1961).

  Disbarment.  For taking fee and not performing services.  3 H. 255 (1871); 59 H. 449, 583 P.2d 333 (1978); 61 H. 223, 601 P.2d 1087 (1979); 62 H. 95, 611 P.2d 993 (1980); 63 H. 382, 629 P.2d 105 (1981).  Possibility of impeachment, effect on power of court to disbar.  26 H. 570 (1922).  License.  29 H. 422 (1926).  Character.  30 H. 588 (1928).

  Suspension.  41 H. 403 (1956), aff'd 260 F.2d 189 (1958), rev'd 360 U.S. 622 (1959); 46 H. 404, 380 P.2d 751 (1963).  See also 256 F.2d 553 (1956). Violation of canons of professional ethics.  53 H. 165, 488 P.2d 1167 (1971).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2021 · leading case: Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy. ICA mem.op., filed 07/29/2016. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion, filed 08/08/2016., 439 P.3d 176 (Haw. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy. ICA mem.op., filed 07/29/2016. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion, filed 08/08/2016., 439 P.3d 176 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Federal courts have not inserted a practice of law exception into the FTCA that is not contained in the plain text of the statute. Because the unfair or deceptive acts or practices statute is a regulation of general applicability, we need not decide in this case whether…”
Potts v. Honorable Justices of Supreme Court of Hawaii, 332 F. Supp. 1392 (D. Haw. 1971). · cites it 7× “§ 605-1 2 or Rule 15(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii.”
State v. Johnston, 456 P.2d 805 (Haw. 1969). · cites it 4× “Sections presently in force are HRS § 605-1 in conjunction with § 11-4 (attorneys at law), § 453-4(2) (physicians and surgeons), § 448-9 (dentists).”
Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii, Etc. v. Bergan, 592 P.2d 814 (Haw. 1979). · cites it 2× “HRS § 605-1 (1976). See In re Trask, 46 Haw.”
In Re Corey, 515 P.2d 400 (Haw. 1973). · cites it 2× “HRS § 605-1, as amended by Act 184, sec. 1(a), S.”
Dubin v. Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (D. Haw. 2021). · cites it 2× “HRS § 605-1(a); see also Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i (“RSCH”) Rule 2.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 605-1(a) — 1 case
Dubin v. Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (D. Haw. 2021). “HRS § 605-1(a); see also Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i (“RSCH”) Rule 2.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 605-1(c) — 1 case
Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy. ICA mem.op., filed 07/29/2016. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion, filed 08/08/2016., 439 P.3d 176 (Haw. 2019). “" Federal courts have not inserted a practice of law exception into the FTCA that is not contained in the plain text of the statute. Because the unfair or deceptive acts or practices statute is a regulation of general applicability, we need not decide in this case whether…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.