 Okay, we're back for live. It's the one o'clock block on a given and very wet Tuesday here in Honolulu on Think Tech, and this is Community Matters, and we're talking about a book from the desk of the Attorney General, a memoir by David M. Louis, and David joins us today. Hi, David. How are you doing, Jay? Nice to have you. They have me here. I have some, you know, preliminary thoughts I want to express to you, and that is, to me, looking at this book, it goes on the same bookshelf as Mitchner's Hawaii, in terms of educating people about the state. Mitchner's Hawaii, Hawaii Pono, Land and Power, and it might be one more, but this is the bookshelf that documents the history of the state inside, tells you about the essence of the state, and this book is right up there with the others. That's my reaction. What's your reaction? Thank you so much, Jay. That's so very nice of you to say such kind things about me. I was just trying to give people a behind the curtain look at what the heck goes on in government. For most people, they think it's a black box. They have no clue how it is. They think it's all screwed up, but they have no clue how it actually works, and, you know, it works like anything else. There's a bunch of people. They've got agreements and commitments and processes, and that's how it works. Yeah, but you said that the rules and politics, they're kind of vague. Some people say there are no rules. Exactly. Sometimes there are no rules. That's true. Yeah. It's a great learning experience to look through this book. I'll tell you why. It's because, you know, if you've been reading the newspaper over the past 20 years or so, you know a certain amount of what happens, but that's the newspaper. This is beyond the newspaper. This is, you know, a drill down from the newspaper. If you want to look back, if you're inclined to do that and deal on the same issues and events that happened that you knew a little something about from reading the newspaper, this book will show you what really happened, which is an amazing revelation, actually, because it teaches you things you never imagined at the time. Well, thank you, Jay. And, you know, I lived through a bunch of these things and they were quite amazing. It's, I was really privileged to have the seat at the table, quite frankly. And I'm really grateful to Governor Abercrombie for picking me and then for bringing me into the inner circle, which was really quite nice, quite a leap of faith by him and an eye-opening education for me. Yeah, you gave up a very thriving practice. You gave up a practice with a lot of prestige in your, you know, in your background, your CV. And, you know, I guess I wonder this question. So you gave up that practice to join the Abercrombie administration, which, you know, depends on how you see it, regrettably only lasted four years. You were only there. You couldn't have been there for more than four years. Query, would we be having this conversation if it was eight years? Would you have written this book if it was eight years? Would you have taken a second four years? I would have taken a second four years, actually. I initially committed to four years with the governor because I didn't know what I was getting myself into. Once I got into it, I enjoyed it immensely. It certainly does not have the money associated with private practice, but the psychic rewards, the ability to have a seat at the table, the ability to be inside and to participate in helping to make history and helping to steer the ship of state is unparalleled. And I enjoyed every minute of it. I really, I said in the book, it was the best job I ever had. And quite frankly, I mean it really was the best job. So I would have done for eight years if Governor Abercrombie had been able to get re-elected. Unfortunately, you know, events conspired against him and conspired against me. You know, eight years being away from practice is longer than four. And I wonder, anybody who goes from a thriving law practice, the kind of, you know, the kind of legal experience you were having to go into government, you know, and shroud yourself in government, takes the risk of losing momentum, yeah? And you'll lose a certain amount of momentum in four years, but you'll lose more of that in eight years. And I wonder if you had some prepidation about going into it. And I wonder if you ever thought, gee whiz, am I losing touch because I'm in government rather than in my practice? Yeah, you know, absolutely. I was trepidatious about it and very concerned about it. And so it was a big decision. I would say that coming out, I got a lot of help from a lot of friends, a lot of strangers too. And I was able to reestablish my practice and, you know, do very fine. So I'm doing fine. Had I been able to stay for eight years, I might have chosen a different path. It was all very, very heady, all very, very satisfying. And quite frankly, you know, that's one of the messages I have. People should engage. People should participate. People should do public service. I found that my stint in public service was extremely rewarding. And so I would encourage others to do it. And they can go in and then they can come out and still participate in private practice. It's not easy. The transition, yeah. Transitions are always tough, but it was very, very rewarding. Well, you know, you couldn't have picked a more active four years. And, you know, when I'm thinking about, you know, your book and having this discussion with you, I could not resist thinking about the Truman Show, if you remember that movie with Jim Carrey. It's like, let's see, how will we challenge David today? It's almost somebody's up there trying to figure out how to make you jump around. And indeed, you had so many issues going on, so many, you know, political issues and environmental issues and historical issues. I mean, how did you deal with that? You must have said, does this happen to everybody? It can't happen to everybody. Somebody's up there making it happen to me. Well, you know, the interesting thing about that job, and I thought it was a big job going in, but I had really no idea. Being the top lawyer for the state with all the myriad of issues that the state has is immense. It's for a lawyer, it's like being in a candy store and not knowing which one to eat. You can eat the chocolate, you can eat the caramels, you're going to eat the pop darts, what are you going to eat? And so there's all kinds of things. The only really saving grace about the whole thing was the smart people at the Department of the Attorney General, the staff, the career people who had been there and had been toiling away, and let me take all the credit while they did all the work. And they were terrific. So I had a lot of help. I had to read a lot. I had to study a lot. I had to learn a lot. But, you know, I mean, if you follow current events, you have some background in these things. And so you find out what the issues are, find out what the legal pressure points are, and then you find out what the political actors want to do and then try and help them and help yourself and try and establish good legal policy and good decisions. So it's a constant balancing act, but it was really a tremendous experience. Well, before you went into that job, you had a, what do I say, a medium-sized firm that you were a founder of that firm. And when you came out of that job four years later, you went to a firm that was a bigger firm, not the biggest in town, but a bigger firm. And nobody will argue that the Department of the Office of the Attorney General is the biggest law firm in the state by far. And so part of the job while you're there has to be to manage all the human resources, to manage a firm this size. Who gets to do what? Who gets to research what? How do you check and verify and, you know, and build teamwork that will give you the best answer? This sounds pretty complicated, even in a, well, in a small firm, in a large firm, but in a super large firm like the Attorney General's Office, that sounds pretty challenging all by itself. Well, true. I had experience because I had managed my firm for 20 years. And I had done it even before then when I was at a, and another large firm, Case and Lynch, back in the day I'd been on the management committees. And so, you know, you just apply yourself and you apply what you know and what you've learned and what you know about human nature and you delegate. And I had the support of terrific supervisors who could manage troops and manage people to do the research. I dealt with, I think about a third of the attorneys because it was a very broad kind of a thing. There were constant new issues. But I would, the great thing about the Attorney General's Office is it's the result that matters. It's not the economics. In private practice, you're always worried about what are the economics? Who's going to pay for all these bodies? Who's going to, who's going to front, pay the freight? And we were more concerned at the AG's office about what's the right result? What do we need? Who are the people we need to get into the room and let's get them in the room and try and figure out what's going on and what is the recommended course of action? And so that was, that was a terrific luxury in some ways. Now you can't go crazy, obviously. You guys still be reasonable about your judicious use of resources. But, but we were able to really focus on what are the key metrics? What are the key things that have to be done? You know, and provide fidelity to the Constitution, both of the United States and of Hawaii, and then the law and, and then figure out, well, what is the right thing to do? Yeah, right. And I, you had plenty of material in the book about that. You know, how do you pick the right course? Sometimes I'm sure you did not agree with the governor. You did not agree with some of your department heads, or for that matter, the lawyers, you were supervising. And you had to find a way to apply your moral imprimatur, your sense of the rule of law on top of all of this. And sometimes it isn't easy. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't easy, is it? No. And, you know, you got to make some decisions sometimes. And there's a line I quoted in the, in the book from Dick Francis, where he says, I forget the name of the book, but, but the saying was thought before action, if there's time. And I love that because, you know, sometimes there's no time. And, and sometimes there's plenty of time. And, and sometimes it's close and it's a balancing act. And, you know, the there, you got five minutes, think fast, you have one hour, think fast. That's it, make your move. But you have to have a strong stomach sometimes, because all those pressures, all the time pressures, the people pressures, human resource pressures, the political pressures, and put a lot of pressure on you at it, you know what it needs, it needs a litigator, David, just like you, am I right? I think having a litigation background really, really helped. It, you know, litigation teaches you to work with teams to, you know, mold teams and put them together, and then to put on a production for a particular goal. And, and, you know, there is a great training, great training for me. I'm not saying non litigators can't do it. They can't. But, but the litigation background certainly helped. Well, your book, your book gives us kind of like the whole enchilada. We get to see the big things, the little things, we get to connect up with the news as we remember it from that particular four year period of time. You were covering so many things, you know, it was like a roller coaster, at least just looking at the book. Here's the cover of the book. Let me see that one more time. That's the cover of the book. It's really nice looking, by the way, David. Thank you. So with all of that material, all of those issues and events that you were experiencing on a day to day basis, I would guess it was like seven times 24 times 365. You have, you must have some favorite cases. And I wonder if you could tell us your very favorite case in terms of challenge, in terms of process, in terms of outcome. Well, you know, I'd have to say that the signature thing that we did that was same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has a long, long history. And because of the confluence of events nationally, it finally came to the fore. The fact that the Hawaii state legislature had overturned and overruled the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1993, decision of Bear versus Luan, where the Hawaii Supreme Court said, hey, same sex marriage is a matter of equal protection. But the country wasn't ready for it. And the country became ready for it in 2013 with the US Supreme Court ruling. And then Governor Abercrombie said, okay, let's pass same sex marriage. And he called the special session, which is the absolute right call. There is no way you could get a giant cultural complex issue through the legislature in regular session. And so we did that. I testified at the legislature. It was very moving to me. It was an issue of social justice, of equality, of opportunity. And it was tremendous. And a lot of people came together. I mean, there were a lot of opposition people who also were fervent. But I felt that it was the right thing to do. And then after we pushed it through the legislature and got it signed, Governor Abercrombie had a big signing ceremony. And he read this letter where this person wrote and said, thank you so much. We were invisible before and now people see us. It was quite moving. And then we were able to do court cases about it too because there was a court challenge to the law. And I went down and argued that in front of the judge and got the motion to dismiss that case. And it eventually went up to the Hawaii Supreme Court and they affirmed that the law was appropriate and constitutional. So that was a big issue, giant issue, and very personally satisfying to be a part of it. I can't take credit for the whole thing. There were so many people who worked on that. So many people at the AGs, the legislature, all kinds of political people. But to be a part of it and to sit at the table and to help steer it was very, very satisfying. Yeah, it was a piece of history, not only in Hawaii, but around the world. It was the shot hurt around the world, wasn't it? Yeah, no. And they just passed it in Chile, I think. I just saw the feed yesterday about some of these places are recognizing same-sex marriage and it's appropriate. I mean, people should be able to live their lives. People should be able to love who they want to spend their lives with the people that they love. And so, you know, I'm fine with that and I wanted to enable that. You know, there's been some press about how in the pipeline there are cases headed toward the United States Supreme Court that challenged the whole thing, a reversal along the lines of the reversal they seek in Roe v. Wade. And that could happen. With this Supreme Court, that could happen. What are your thoughts about that? Well, this Supreme Court is very conservative and it certainly looks like they're going to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't think they're going to overturn same-sex marriage. I don't think that they're going to do that. That would be a bridge too far for even the conservatives, I think, on this. But you never know. I can't predict that. The thing about constitutional law is that these justices are making it up. Okay. There's no precedent and they feel free to disregard precedent. And so, in many ways, you know, Justice Sotomayor said it, they're political actors. And so, they have to temper their political activism with not moving too quickly and with trying to respect prior precedent. But there are really very few checks on them to do that. So, it's difficult. Yeah. There was an article in The Times on Sunday calling what they had done gaslighting the country in terms of the, you know, the questions and their responses in the Supreme Court hearing on Roe v. Wade. We'll see what we'll see. So, let me ask you on the other flip side of that question. Here you have four years of high action, may I call it. What was your least favorite case or issue? You want me to kiss and tell. I don't do it in the book and in general I don't. But, you know, dealing with some actors who wanted different results than what I felt was right or was, you know, those were challenging times. And some of them were more aggressive than others. But, you know, I had the law on my side in terms of what my authority was. I had statutory power. I had constitutional power. I had precedent. And so I would tell them, you know, like, this is the way it is. I understand you don't like it. I understand you may not like it a lot. And you're going to express it to me. But I'm going to do it the way I think the law and the constitution requires. I love that. That's got, you know, I mean, really this book should be read nationwide. I'm telling you right now. So, you know, what's interesting is that you came at this from a career of practicing law and now it's something completely different. And you had to, you know, go to the occasion of looking carefully at government, at politics, at public opinion, mores, and the state of Hawaii with its special culture. And of course, the rule of law is always an issue. And the role of the attorney generals, there's so many things to, you know, be fresh impressions for you, fresh lessons. And I just wonder if you could capsize for us. And you did cover it in the book. What you learned, what you learned about government, about Hawaii, about politics, and about your own interaction with those things in those four years. It's like having a very heavy college course or maybe a graduate degree. Yeah. You know, that as I mentioned at the beginning, a lot of people have no idea what government does. It's a black box to them. It's a mystery. It's, you know, a closed kind of a thing to them. And the fact of the matter is, is that government is, it's a huge important institution. And it's too important to be left to others. Everybody needs to engage. I'm certainly glad I engaged. I'm certainly glad I participated. And what I learned was, is that, you know, you can make your voice heard, even the smallest, most insignificant person by voting, they can make their voice heard. But, but beyond that, you have advocates who step up, you have public policy advocates, who step up and try and make their voices heard and look for good government and things like that. You know, you have special interests who are, you know, spending lots of money and trying to get their point of view across. That's democracy as we know it. And the important thing from my perspective is, is people need to engage. That's what I learned, is that it's important to engage. You know, I came out and some things happened. And now I'm in a position where it's like, I actually know what to do and how to fix certain things, or how to at least tee them up for possible others to make good decisions, to, to right wrongs, or to fix things and make life a little bit better for everybody else. So I think that's the one thing I took away was, it's not unknowable. It's, it's, it's a process of people like anything else. And you just have to get in there and engage and make your voice heard, so that you can both represent yourself and you can make your views known. And you can hopefully help move us all forward to a better tomorrow. That's what I'm looking at. Well, it's, you know, if that was true in the, in the period you served, and, you know, when you got out to do a retrospective look at it, it's certainly much more true today. You know, the only, some people say the only way to say about democracy is to engage with it, just as you say. There was an article a few days ago in The Atlantic, a really, it's a famous, it will be a famous article, just the way your book will be a famous book, by Barton Gelman, who is one of the principals in, in The Atlantic. And it's, it's actually reduced to audio. It's an hour and a half of audio. And the proposition there is, there are some serious problems in this country. And there's nobody right now who stands up as someone who is going to be able to solve them. You don't see the solutions that are persuasive coming up. But the one thing, and he discusses various options, and it's worth listening to him. The one thing that seems to come up more than anything else is the citizens have got to take a stand on the rule of law. They have to engage. They have to speak out. You know, this is one of the reasons, David, you know, that think tech exists. And, and I know it's one of the reasons you are on the board full disclosure, you run our board. So what do you think about that? What do you think about saving the country? What do you think about Barton Gelman's concern and his potential solutions? Yeah, you know, I totally agree. I, I, the, the, the thing is, is, and I find myself in the trap many times. I'm tired. I don't want to listen to somebody I think is an idiot. I don't want to listen to contrary views that I think are totally misguided that ignore science, that ignore logic that are, that are there for petty concerns. And yet my view on the thing is, is we need to engage. We need to treat other people with respect. We need to hear them out. And we need to try and work together. And there's plenty of people doing this on NPR and, and talking about this in the Atlantic. We need to stay away from our closed bubbles, our echo chambers, where we only listen to the others to what makes sense to us. And, and we won't countenance another point of view. And we won't recognize that other people have other points of view. And we think they're all idiots. Because if that happens, and we all retreat, and we can't engage, and we can't talk, then we're not going to be able to have a shared future. And if, if we can't have a shared future, then we're going to devolve into warfare and, and sniping and violence and all of those other bad things. And, and so I think it's absolutely necessary that people have to be able to engage and find a way to talk to other people without being, I guess, overly aggressive, without turning people off, without, you know, demonizing the other people. There was a, there was a, a piece on NPR about, about this woman who, who encountered a, you know, Uncle Larry, the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner. And what she said was, Hey, Uncle Larry, you know, you know, I, I know you, you're actually a good person. And those nasty things, you know, and, and you'd run into a burning building to save people regardless of race. But, but I can't square that with what you just said, all those nasty things you just said about Mexican Americans, you know, how, how is that? So that rather than attacking him, she was trying to, you know, point out to him, challenge him, you got a challenge, you have to challenge. But by challenging in a sort of a, a softer manner, I think it's a, it's a potentially much more fruitful. Yeah, as you said, the book of feeling to his better angels. Yeah. Yeah. Right. No, that's the thing. I mean, it's, it's really tough. And, and, and I, I do believe, I mean, we have a lot of polarization in this country, not, not it. We have some in Hawaii, but it's nothing like the polarization that exists on the mainland. David, you know, you've been through law firms big and small, hither and yon. You've had the experience of an attorney general and done well at it. Would you ever consider running for office, David? This is David Louie, David M. Louie, I'm asking. Oh, I think I'm past that as far as my career goes. I've never really been a retail politician, somebody who likes to get out there and press the flesh. And you have to be a special person to do that. It's, it's a tough job. It's a, it's a tough undertaking. And that has not been my either forte or bent to love doing that. So probably no, I wouldn't, I wouldn't run, but I, I continue to support people who are running and I hope that they get elected. Yeah, right. That's the important thing is a whole generation out there that needs to engage actively in politics. Well, I want to talk about one of the possible career you could enter into. And that's the career of author. Let me say to start that the book, which is available on Amazon, I checked the book is, is really well written. You know, people worry about lawyers writing books, you know, because there'll be a here to for an aware as and a where to hear for whatnot. But that's not this book. You, you have boiled your rhetoric, your prose down to very understandable succinct statements with relatively short sentences. And it's very easy to read. It's not covered in legal. Did you consciously do that? I mean, did you have to think about it? You know, when you write a, when you write up, when you speak to a jury, for example, you have to talk their language. When you speak to a judge or an appellate court, that's a different language. And I wonder what voice you were looking for when you wrote the book. Well, you know, I had a lot of help. One, my daughter, Jenna, and my brother, Steven, helped me edit it down. And really were merciless in their criticism and their red penmanship. But, you know, writing a book is both easier and harder than you anticipate. It's easier to do it these days, because there's lots of resources available and a lot of stuff out there. But it's still harder than you, and then I anticipated, because you can put it down on paper. But then you have to be merciless in your editing. You really, you can't fall in love with your own words. And you just got to get to the point. I really was trying to get to the point and make it a fast read and make it a lighter read, even though there were some pretty dense subjects, some pretty dense legalese that formed the background of the decisions we were making. And so it was it was a trick to try and figure out how to present that so that it could be understandable and give people the background about that without overburdening them. And so that was that was the hard part. And quite frankly, it took a lot of editing and a lot of criticism that that I took the heart. But, you know, getting criticism, boy, you hate that. Well, but better criticism before than after, you know what I mean? So how did you deal with the issue of the sacred cows? You know, some of these things, what did you call it, kiss and tell? You know, are a little delicate to write up. How did you deal with that? How did you resolve that in terms of your own approach? Well, my own approach was, you know, I like to see the positive in people. And the publisher told me, you know, if you're not going to kiss and tell, it doesn't sell as well. But the fact of the matter is, is I, you know, I'm not, it's never been my intention to try and hold people up to, to just criticize them or talk, think about them. That's not my nature. And really, the point was, is just to let people know, here's what happened. Here's how I deal with these things. And, and sometimes I name people, sometimes I didn't name people. I didn't think it was necessary to name people who, who I was being critical of all the time. Some of them I did. Well, you know, this is a book where you really have to be conscious of those things. If, you know, because it's a book of history. And, you know, I suppose you have to be very careful. I mean, even before everybody, your family, whatnot, your editor gets in on you, to state it correctly, maybe do some research, make sure that your recollection's right. And of course, to write it up so, I mean, and lawyers do this all the time, to write it up so that your language accurately reflects and expresses what you want to say. And I had the feeling that this book was just like that. You thought it through, and you would, you were very determined to make every word an accurate statement of what you were saying. And that, that goes a long way. It's a credibility thing for the reader. Well, thank you, Jay. That's very nice of you to say that. I had a lot of help. Because it's not always easy getting your thoughts down on paper. And then, you know, I talked it through with a number of people and advisors who, you know, helped me form the thoughts and, you know, what are you really trying to say here? What's your real opinion? What are you really thinking about? Don't edge up to it. Let's just come right out and say it. Okay, well, let's examine that. All right, David, I asked you to pick a couple of paragraphs so we can actually have a sort of case study of that, you know, revealed. So why don't you read a paragraph or two and tell us what you were trying to say and what you did say and give us an example of your prose, if you don't mind. Okay, well, let me read two passages from a chapter called Get a Dog. And the first paragraph is, let me read it. I have always thought of politics and government as a sumo wrestling match. Because of the large Japanese-American population in Hawaii and the large numbers of Japanese tourists who come to Hawaii, sumo wrestling used to be regularly on TV in the 1970s. Sumo is a contest of very large, half-naked men pushing and shoving each other to force the other out of the ring. To establish dominance, power and authority. Politics and government are similar. Many naked and sometimes full, there are many half-naked and sometimes fully naked, vested interests and people playing in the arena, pushing and shoving each other, vying for money, power and influence. Government decisions, legislation and regulations often directly affect the lives and fortunes of many people. The stakes are high. And then at the end of that... What a perfect paragraph. Let me say I did not hear anywhere too far or here too far or therefore or anything like that in that paragraph. And then the second paragraph is as follows. Because the stakes are high and money, power and prestige are on the line, the world of politics and government can be a rough and tumble environment. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that people would try to get their way by doing and saying things that might be considered questionable or over the line. When politicians are trying to avoid blame or obtain a result, sometimes they do not care if they act in a manner that would not be countenanced by people of goodwill or among friends. That is simply the political world. As President Harry S. Truman famously said, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. As I went forward, I realized that a number of my experiences were really just politics as usual. What a lesson. You have to get a PhD for serving for four years in Hawaii. David, that is nicely written. I take it it was a good experience and a good outcome and a good book. It will go on the bookshelves along with some very famous Hawaii historical reads. But query, what is your next book about? That is a great question, Jay. I am not sure I have another book in me. If I was to do something, I would want to do it about famous lawyers like you and have other notable people tell their stories and then put it down. I will tell you this. It is not an easy process writing a memoir. You have to stick to it. I did it. I thought it was done. I sent it out to friends and my family. They came back and said, we do not think this is ready for prime time, David. I went, oh, that is disheartening. I said, that is fair enough. That is true. I went back and put it down for a few months because I was tired. Then I went back and spent several more months editing and slashing and burning and just cutting it down as much as I could to make it a faster, better, more informative read. That is the way it came out, David. Let me say that we know that a lot of information passes these days in our 21st century, passed by social media, not necessarily by meeting face to face, but by social media and a certain amount of the newspaper. Newspapers have changed and we are doing a show soon enough about the decline of regional and local newspapers and how that affects our democracy. And you look at the TV stations and they repeat themselves a lot, but query are they drilling down the way they should? And what you find clearly is that if you want to know what really happened, you have to read a book. And books are more important than they were 10 or 20 years ago to the general population who wants to know what really happened. And this book is right there. This book tells us what really happened. So to me, writing a book like this, David, is a public service all in its own. Thank you very much for doing it. Oh, thank you, Jay. And that's why I think think tech is so important that you provide thoughtful commentary, thoughtful analysis for people who want to listen to just people thinking about things and analyzing things as opposed to just reporting a horse race or just reporting some facts, which sometimes this is all that passes on the news. And that's unfortunate. But you think tech is doing a great job about that. And it's been a real privilege to serve on your board. Thank you, David and Louis. And a man who has allowed us to enter the Attorney General's office with him to sit at his side, to sit at his shoulder and experience what he experienced. It's a great tribute to a public official, and it's a great benefit to the public. Thank you so much, David. Thank you, Jay. Thank you very much. Aloha. Aloha.