 Back. This is Think Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. We're doing life in the law today here at the noon, the noon hour on Tuesday with Bob Toyofuku. And he runs Pacific Law Institute, does a lot of training. As a matter of fact, he's been training lawyers and arbitrators and, for that matter, judges since the 70s. I want to be clear about this, the 1970s. Okay. That's right. Why not a long time ago, Jay? I remember it well. I remember all those seminars and conferences and continuing legal education programs you made in Waikiki and the day when they were all in Waikiki. Then the Bar Association would come down en masse by the hundreds and all get trained up. And not only that, it was more than that. It was a kind of a gathering. And everyone loved to be there. You set a tone. You set a level of professional education that was really unforgettable. Thank you. Yeah. And you've been doing it in different ways ever since. So the first thing I want to ask is, how do you feel about my statement, my statement of principle here, that the rule of law begins with the lawyers? What do you think about that? Well, I think that, you know, the lawyers, I think the public really, especially with what's going on on a national scale, the rule of law, the topic and the issue and the principle is more important than ever before. And lawyers always stay loyal to the rule of law, hopefully anyway. Yeah. Well, I want to talk about that later in the show about what, you know, what lawyers should be doing these days to protect the rule of law. But let's talk about, you know, the evolution of your legal training programs from the 1970s. I know this is a big question, but how has it gone for you, Bob? It's been terrific. You know, I'll just give you a little history, since you just reminded me of it. I was the president of the young lawyers section back in 1970-71. And I made sure that we had continuing legal education programs when I was the president. And subsequent to that, I went up to the law school, I was practicing law, but then I left the practice and I went up to the law school with Ms. Richardson School of Law, which was still then the University of Hawaii School of Law. And I was teaching a legal methods course, but the reason I went up to the law school was to organize and start the Hawaii Institute for Continuing Legal Education. And that was in 1976-77. And so I just loved doing seminars. So I prepared all of these seminars. I think one of the largest seminars we had when I was still at Hickel, H-I-C-L-E, I think we had about 600, which included lawyers, paralegals, secretaries. And we had a seminar on the new rules of the circuit court. And so we filled up the top of ballroom at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. But since then, you know, I left the law school and did other things. And I started lobbying in 1984. And at that time, I started the Pacific Law Institute. And I continued doing seminars for lawyers. And so that's evolved. So I've been doing seminars since really on a regular basis since about 1984, except recently in the last, oh, I would say seven, eight years, I haven't been doing as many except for the court and ex arbitration program trainings. I got too busy lobbying. And hopefully I'll be able to continue doing more seminars since you and I have hooked up. And plus just for the audience, I've known Jay Fidel for many years. We were on the same floor when we were practicing law and became friends with Jay and his partner at that time, Ed Bendette. And so now we are not reacquainted, we hooked up again. And so I got fairly excited about doing seminars with Think Tech, moving into the future, hopefully. Yeah, I really looking forward to that, Bob. You know, one thing that strikes me to, you know, to visit, you know, the development of your training programs in the 70s, the 80s, and so forth. It always struck me how much law you knew. You know, if there was a seminar about something, you knew the area, you knew so many areas of law in detail. And I guess that's because you started it in preparing for the seminars. And therefore, when you did the seminars, it was at a very high level. Do you remember? Oh, yeah. Thanks, Jay. Yeah, before each seminar, and in certain areas, because I was a general practitioner, when I was at the Hawaii Institute for Continuing Legal Ed, I had background in many legal areas. But I always said that I was a jack of all trades, master of none. What I would do is I would get the experts in an area. But I always researched that area and devised a curriculum and created a script for the lawyers so that we would stay on point and not get diverted when they were making the presentation. And initially, I did not moderate. And then I started to moderate a lot, which I enjoy. But anyway, yeah, I study each area and talk to the expert speakers that I got to do the program. And I had an understanding of the law. At least, I consider superficially. But it worked out because I could pick out areas that I felt that the general practitioner or the practitioner should be aware of. Yeah, and that was very valuable. You know, there are other legal training programs emanating from the mainland, I think, national programs where they try to cover everything about every state. And it isn't limited to any one state. And of course, in the law, all the states are different. So there was a great value. There is a great value in having a local program. And so if I had to choose between a program that you were moderating, that you had organized, and a program that came from somewhere on the mainland, I would always choose your program because it would help me much more to deal with, A, the law of Hawaii, and B, the people who were involved in the law of Hawaii. Find out who the experts were. Find out who was sitting next to me. This was much more valuable than something far away. Well, thank you, Jay. You know, I'll give you a quick example. When I did a course in the first year on debt collection, I knew that it's very simple to file a complaint to collect the debt. And the defense attorney would file a answer. And the attorney for the creditor, let's assume he or she got a judgment. The problem was that many attorneys, journal practitioners, were not as familiar with the processes on how to collect on the judgment. You know what you did, the garnishment, the execution, the attachment. So when I did the seminar, I created forms that they could use to execute on the judgment. And so that made it better for the attorneys, better for the clients they represented. And that was part of the goal that I was, I always used as a basis to do these seminars. If you made it better, more practical for the attorneys, then they would save some time and do a better job, I felt anyway, for their clients. I have a recollection, Bob, of being there with Dave Ezra, lady became a federal judge, and you and a collection seminar, and a manual of collection forms. I have this recollection, probably out of the 70s, huh? Yes, I did one. And at that time I did, well, I would hand out a binder or a just a forms, an explanation of how to do it as part of the seminar. It wasn't just a verbal lecture. So people went away with, the attorneys went away with something they could use. And then later on, I started doing these books and binders. Yeah, which are very valuable. I mean, I don't know if the public realizes that lawyers need to have legal forms. They can't reinvent the wheel every time. And they can't go back looking through their files for forms, although that's one way of doing it. If they had a book of generally accepted forms that saves them so much time, it makes their product so much better. Weren't you one of the authors on the collection, source book? I think I was, Bob. It's a long time ago. A long time ago. I think you were, Jay. Anyway, let's talk about the evolution of the Pacific Law Institute into its current partnership with the state judiciary, because that is something. You have done training, if you will, for judges. I remember seeing some of that. I remember there was a training program on, for example, social media back when you did that for the judiciary. The judges came down to participate, so they could get a handle on social media for judges. But in the process there, you became kind of a partner with the state judiciary. Can you talk about that? Well, I formed the Pacific Law Institute in 1984, and basically doing seminars for lawyers. But in 1988, to be specific, the late Justice James Wakatsuki, who was a justice on the Hawaii State Supreme Court, called me up. And if you recall, he was the former speaker of the House of Representatives. So Justice Wakatsuki called me up and asked me if I could do a program for the judges. And because I had contact on the mainland through national groups, especially California, I said, oh, absolutely, I'll do it. So I started doing training, so seminars for the judges. I would bring in other judges from the mainland initially, as well as use judges from local judges. So that evolved into me helping the judiciary start up the judicial education program. And so that evolved over the years. And I was involved in helping them do at least two trainings a year conferences. And they had an executive director. And then a judicial education committee was formed, made up primarily of judges. And they asked me, because of my experience in setting up seminars, to be on the committee. And there was no conflict because I was not practicing law anymore. And I never appeared before the court. And so I still sit on the committee and I help the executive director and the committee with courses that they decide to do. And every year, geez, it's been at least 10 years. I do a legislative update for the judges after the session is over. Another thing people don't realize is that judges come into the job. And it's not that easy to become a judge, of course, the subject of another discussion. But judges come into the job, they don't know about being judges. They may know about life in the courtroom, but they don't know about being judges, you know, when you're the guy who calls the shots. And you have to be trained, you have to get training, federal judges and a lot of training like that. And state judges need to have that too. And the reason is to be more confident to make better rulings and to avoid being reversed by making silly mistakes. And so this is very valuable not only for the judges, but for the litigants and for the community. Am I right? Yes, you know, and the judiciary has a mentor program. So when a judge is appointed either by the governor or the chief justice and then confirmed by the Senate, before the judge really steps into the courtroom, the Judicial Education Committee actually assigns a mentor judge to that judge. So let's assume the judge is going to be assigned to the criminal bench, then you would have an existing criminal judge on the criminal bench mentoring him or her. And so that really helps. Very valuable. Yeah. And there is a special training and the National Judicial College also on the mainland also has courses for new judges. And so most of the judges at some point go to the college to get more background on particular issues. Yeah. So it's really a combination of things to make a good judge and one of them is to get trained as a judge. Oh, yes. Somewhere along the line here, we need to segue into arbitrators because there's a thing called the court annexed arbitration program. And you're going to do a program on that to train or do an annual training of arbitrators in a few days time, which is really the subject of our collaboration these days right now. And I'd like to ask you to explain to our viewers what court annexed arbitration is, who does it, and of course how they're trained. Sure. Now the court annexed arbitration program in short called CAT, C-A-A-P, was created by the legislature in 1986. And basically they created this in conjunction with the Hawaii State Judiciary to provide mandatory non-binding arbitration to provide a process to have quick and equitable resolution of certain types of cases. So the cases that go into this program are civil action cases that affect tort, which is negligence cases. And basically, you know, for the viewers, you know, it's auto accident cases, premises liability, slip and fall. And all of the, this is a voluntary program. So arbitrators to be qualified to be an arbitrator, attorneys must have at least five years of experience. In other words, has passed the bar at least been in practice or some former practice for five years. You know, preferably if they have litigation experience, that's even better. But so the program was formed in 1986 by the legislature. A judicial arbitration commission was created. And each circuit has a arbitration administrator and an arbitration judge. And there is a judicial arbitration commission, which is all five judges and members, plus they have about nine different attorneys who are members of the commission. And they oversee the program. So the training happens every year. So because I was a member of the commission as well, so I've done our trainings now, Jay, for the past 30 years. And we used to do it live. Obviously, I did it in Honolulu, Kauai, Wailuko on Maui, Kilo and Kona. So we would do it live. So I would take certain speakers with me to the neighbor islands or use attorneys from the neighbor islands. Say I go to Wailuko, whoever is depending upon the topic, I would pick attorneys that I felt were good communicators and knowledgeable in the area. Say we did one on premises liability law to give arbitrators a background on it. And we would present the program for two hours. So that's been going on now for 30 years. This year, because of COVID and the pandemic, we're not able to do it live. So fortunately, for Pacific Law Institute and a judiciary, knowing ThinkTech and UJ to help set this up, we are going to do it virtually through, and maybe you can explain, but basically through Zoom. So I have picked three panelists, you know, Judge Peter Keohel from Maui, Judge Dean Ochiye from Honolulu, and Retired Judge Rikimea Mano, who was a judge on the Third Circuit on the Big Island to be the panelists. And they all have experienced doing hearings, whether court hearings, or in the case of Rikimea Mano, mediation and arbitration virtually. So the topic for this session is not on substantive law, but we're going to teach, hopefully educate the arbitrators on how to do a virtual hearing. So basically, once a case is set up in CAP, you should have a hearing according to the rules within nine months. So it goes through a process, and then the arbitrator schedules a hearing with the plaintiff and the defendant and the attorneys, if they have attorneys, and they, it's like a regular court hearing, except it's a lot more informal, it's arbitration. And keep in mind, it is non-binding arbitration. So depending, then the arbitrator makes an award, and either the plaintiff or the defendant can appeal to a court and what they call a trial de novo. So in other words, the arbitration award is not viewed by the judge, and it is, they have a brand new trial. So that's the appellate process that is built into the CAP program. So this is an interesting inflection point, because you're talking about changing the rules, procedural rules of the traditional CAP arbitration to account for COVID. How would an arbitration hearing be different according to the training you're going to give? Well, by the way, let me backtrack just a little bit, Jay, in that we may have, or the arbitrator may have an instance where it may not be possible to do a virtual hearing. You know, let's assume that the defendant in a case, right, does not have an attorney and is self-represented, what we usually call pro se. And let's assume that defendant does not have access to a computer, really does have no technological background, and would not know how to participate in a virtual hearing on Zoom or Microsoft or whatever, all the different programs. So the arbitrator has to figure out, okay, how are we going to accommodate that self-represented defendant, or plaintiff could be plaintiff. So we are going to present to the arbitrators various alternatives that they can use to do an in-person hearing. Now, keep in mind that there's risk involved, and you have CDC, federal, state, county restrictions, you have to wear a mask, you have to have distance, six foot distance. So how are you going to actually do an in-person hearing? You know, you have to have the right space. Do you have to disinfect the space? You know, you have a lot of issues. So we want to at least advise the CAP arbitrator about what they may need to do. Then we thought about, well, can we do a hybrid type of hearing where part of it would be live, that would be risk-free, and part of it would be on virtual, on Zoom, say. So that's going to be part of the program that we're going to do live this Friday, but most of it will be on how to do it virtually, because there are issues that will come up. For example, what about exhibits? What about the pre-hearing of discovery, etc. How do you handle witnesses that may not have a computer? You know, you have all these practical problems that we're going to go over. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, go ahead. Well, it just strikes me, Bob, that this is really extraordinary. You know, Chief Justice Mark Recton-Wald is working hard to facilitate the continuation of justice in the judiciary and access to justice by the people of our state. We have to keep on abiding by the rule of law. We have to keep the legal mechanisms going, because once they stop, once the public loses confidence in them, that's a tremendous loss. You know, backbone of this country is the rule of law, and respect and confidence in the judiciary and the systems. It strikes me that what you're doing is so timely and so important. You're continuing a very important program, the CAP operation program, but you're adapting it to the crisis we have at hand, which may last a long time. And so I'm very impressed with the fact that you're doing this, as I am impressed with the fact that the CJ is doing similar things for the judicial courtroom process in the same way. You know, Jay, speaking of that particular topic, I did talk to the Chief Justice several months ago and said, CJ, I think I'm going to do the CAP program, but we can't do it live in person. So I am going to do it virtually somehow, and this was before I contacted you, or right before I contacted you for some assistance, which has been, Jay, invaluable. Okay, but then so the CJ was very happy about that, that I was going to continue the training. And he and I talked a little bit about what you're referring to as the rule of law. I think as you know, that especially in criminal trials, a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial. So how are you going to set up jury trials with people live, right? Or can you do it virtually? So Chief Justice, I just talked to him just recently, and he is working on that to get it set up so that the rule of law and the current law is abided by. So important. So both are doing this and that Hawaii is flexible and creative enough to handle these issues logistical and otherwise in the time of our crisis. And in a funny way, it seems to me that Hawaii is a leader, a national leader, as states go in doing these things. And in fact, the arbitration you're talking about it, that's leadership stuff that other states will like to see. So I hope they come around and watch the way you handle this. I hope other states adopt the same kinds of lessons you're teaching the arbitrators. And I think you're in a great spot. I envy you with the contribution. So anyway, Bob, we're out of time. And I just wanted to thank you for coming down today. Thank you for explaining this and people will have a better understanding of how the CAP program works and how important justice and the rule of law is for our state. Aloha. Thank you very much, Jay.