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

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 605-7 (2026)

  Control of action; power to settle

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

     §605-7  Control of action; power to settle.  The practitioners licensed by the supreme court shall have control to judgment and execution, of all suits and defenses confided to them; provided that no practitioner shall have power to compromise, arbitrate, or settle such matters confided to the practitioner, unless upon special authority in writing from the practitioner's client. [CC 1859, §1069; RL 1925, §2310; RL 1935, §3609; RL 1945, §9707; RL 1955, §217-7; HRS §605-7; am L 1972, c 184, §1(d); gen ch 1985]

 

Case Notes

 

  Where plaintiff argued that this section was controlling in the case, plaintiff's original complaint was filed in federal court under federal question jurisdiction and it was federal law, not state law, that controlled the action.  165 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (2001).

  New counsel taking up a case must take it where counsel finds it.  7 H. 168 (1887).

  Withdrawal of attorney, only on reasonable notice to client.  46 H. 52, 374 P.2d 665 (1962).

  Authority of attorney of record, attempted withdrawal from case.  49 H. 20, 27-29, 407 P.2d 885 (1965).

  Where record did not reflect that attorney obtained defendant's written consent to stipulate to a dismissal of condemnation action, it appeared that attorney's act of consenting on behalf of defendant was unauthorized; defendant's failure to contest the settlement constituted a ratification of the settlement and consequently a ratification of the stipulation and order to dismiss the condemnation action.  77 H. 144, 883 P.2d 65 (1994).

  Attorney's failure to obtain written authorization under this section to settle easement action by agreeing to sell property on behalf of appellees did not bar enforcement of agreement.  78 H. 76, 890 P.2d 313 (1995).

  Where attorney did not have written authority of client to settle a matter on behalf of client, agreement to settle was "unauthorized".  79 H. 403 (App.), 903 P.2d 708 (1995).

  Waiving client's rights.  Trial procedure generally.  2 H. 27, 31 (1857).  Cannot waive client's right to face witnesses against him.  3 H. 240 (1870).  Irregularities may be waived.  5 H. 30 (1885).  Client may confirm action taken by attorney without permission of client.  4 H. 23 (1878).  Client must act promptly after notice.  25 H. 386 (1920).  Charging settlement without client's knowledge in a newspaper charges unprofessional conduct, and when in writing is libelous per se.  23 H. 804, 808 (1917).  Compromise not an admission.  25 H. 43, 49 (1919).  Attorney has no power to file on behalf of attorney's client, in an action of ejectment a disclaimer of all title, unless authorized by the client.  26 H. 412 (1922).  Disqualification.  30 H. 533 (1928).  General retainer not power to compromise.  40 H. 108 (1953).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Matsuura v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 73 P.3d 687 (Haw. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matsuura v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 73 P.3d 687 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 6× “Thus, the ICA determined that, in spite of the ethical duties placed upon attorneys, the facts of the case before it, including the requirements of HRS § 605-7, indicated that reliance upon the attorney's representations was not reasonable under the circumstances.”
Cook v. Sur. Life Ins. Co., 903 P.2d 708 (Haw. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “The practitioners licensed by the supreme court shall have control to judgment and execution, of all suits and defenses confided to them; provided that wo. practitioner shall have power to compromise, arbitrate, or settle such matters confided to the practitioner, unless upon…”
Nelson v. Boone, 890 P.2d 313 (Haw. 1995). · cites it 14× “[The Appellants’] claims herein are barred by HRS § 605-7 because Colin Love had no written authority from his clients to settle [the easement action] nor did the [Appellants] act in substantial reliance on Love’s representation nor did they inquire as to his authority to bind…”
Hawai'i Hous. Auth. v. Uyehara, 883 P.2d 65 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 6× “Authority to Consent HRS § 605-7 clearly sets restrictions on an attorney’s power to act as an agent in settlement proceedings: The practitioners licensed by the supreme court shall have control to judgment and execution, of all suits and defenses confided to them; provided that…”
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× “Because the unfair or deceptive acts or practices statute is a regulation of general applicability, we need not decide in this case whether directly regulating the legal profession is an exclusive power of the judicial branch.”
Harris v. DeSoto, 911 P.2d 60 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 3× “HRS § 605-7 provides: Control of action; power to settle.”
Scott v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Haw. 2001). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 605-7 is controlling in this case. H.R.”
Riihimaki v. Young Hui Kim (In re Young Hui Kim), 565 B.R. 169 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2017). · cites it 2× “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 605-7 ; Doi v. Halekulani Corp.”
Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Waikiki Banyan v. Leimkuhler (Haw. App. 2026). · cites it 6× “In support of this position, Owners argue, among other things, that Ogomori did not have written actual authority to agree to the term sheet on their behalf, as required by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 605-7;6 and Owners 6 HRS § 605-7 (2016), entitled "Control of action;…”
Son-gi Han v. Kang, 220 P.3d 1052 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Han claimed Phillips's actions were "contrary to [Han's] explicit instructions before the May 6 telephone Settlement Hearing[,]" yet she provides no explanation of what her explicit instructions to Phillips were.”
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.