amendments to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

[2] The advocate's function is to present evidence and
argument so that the cause may be decided according to law.
Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary
of the advocate's right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer
may stand firm against abuse by a judge but should avoid
reciprocation; the judge's default is no justification for similar
dereliction by an advocate. An advocate can present the cause,
protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve
professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than
by belligerence or theatrics.
[3] It has long been recognized and acknowledged that
post-discharge respectful conduct between a trial lawyer (or
those acting on the lawyer's behalf) and jurors before whom the
lawyer has appeared benefits both the lawyer and the jurors.
The lawyer may gain insights that enable the lawyer to better
represent future clients and the juror may have some mysteries
(usually related to the admission or rejection of evidence) solved
so as to better appreciate the workings of the justice system. In
addition, it is not at all uncommon for lawyers and judges to talk
casually about a former case that has become final. Hawai‘i's
original HRPC 3.5(a) and (b), adopted in December 1993,
provided:
A lawyer shall not:
(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or
other official by means prohibited by law;
(b) communicate ex parte with such a person except as
permitted by law; or
(c) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
Original HRPC 3.5(a) and (b) appeared to preclude "all
post-trial communications between attorneys and jurors,
relating to the subject matter of the trial, in the presence of all
parties to the proceeding or their legal representatives." State v.
Furutani, 76 Hawai‘i 172, 177, n.8, 873 P.2d 51, 56 n.8 (1994).
The same prohibition would logically have applied to
lawyer-judge post-decision contacts. The supreme court
asserted that HRPC 3.5 prohibited post-trial contact that was
permissible under DR 7-108 of the prior Code of Professional
Responsibility. Id.
As interpreted, original HRPC 3.5 prohibited post-trial
contact in an oblique manner: original paragraph (a) precluded
seeking "to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other
official" while original paragraph (b) precluded
"communicat[ion] ex parte with such a person." A discharged
juror was not specifically referenced in original HRPC
3.5(a)-(c). Original HRPC 3.5 referred to jurors and prospective
jurors. There are sound public policy reasons for precluding ex
- 94 ­