amendments to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

substantially. This Rule forbids such representation unless all
of the parties to the proceedings give their consent after
consultation, confirmed in writing. See Rule 1.0(c) and (b) of
these Rules, respectively. Other law or codes of ethics
governing third-party neutrals may impose more stringent
standards of personal or imputed disqualification. See Rule 2.4
of the Rules.
[3] Although lawyers who serve as third-party neutrals
do not have the information concerning the parties that is
protected under Rule 1.6, they typically owe the parties an
obligation of confidentiality under law or codes of ethics
governing third-party neutrals. Thus, paragraph (c) provides
that conflicts of the personally disqualified lawyer will be
imputed to other lawyers in a law firm unless the conditions of
this paragraph are met.
[4] Requirements for screening procedures are stated in
Rule 1.0(l) of these Rules. Paragraph (c)(1) does not prohibit
the screened lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership
share established by prior independent agreement, but that
lawyer may not receive compensation directly related to the
matter in which the lawyer is disqualified.
[5] Notice, including a description of the screened
lawyer’s prior representation and of the screening procedures
employed, generally should be given as soon as practicable after
the need for screening becomes apparent.
[6] For a discussion of “substantially related,” see
Comment [3] to Rule 1.9 of these Rules.
Rule 1.13. ORGANIZATION AS CLIENT.
(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the
organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.
(b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or
other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act,
or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a
legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might
be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to
the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the
best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is
not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall
refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by
the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act in behalf of the
organization as determined by applicable law.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d), if
(1) despite the lawyer's efforts in accordance with paragraph (b), the
highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization (i) insists upon an
action that is clearly a violation of law, (ii) or insists upon a refusal to act that is
clearly a violation of law, or (iii) fails to address such a violation in a timely and
appropriate manner, and
- 59 ­