508 P.3d 832
Haw.2022Background
- Beginning in 2011 Nelson Armitage and others occupied three parcels of Alexander & Baldwin, LLC (A&B) land in Maui and asserted authority on behalf of a group calling itself the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation.
- A&B sued for ejectment, damages, and preliminary and permanent injunctions; the complaint named both individual defendants and the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation (an unincorporated association).
- Henry Noa (prime minister) and Nelson Armitage (foreign minister) — neither licensed attorneys — repeatedly participated in circuit-court proceedings as representatives of the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation: filing motions, cross-examining witnesses, and arguing at hearings.
- The circuit court entered summary judgment and a permanent injunction for A&B, naming Noa as “Pro Se representative” of the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation; defendants appealed pro se.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals held non-attorneys could not represent the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation, treated the organization as not a party to the appeal, but addressed Armitage’s individual arguments and affirmed the judgment against him.
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held non-attorneys may not represent an unincorporated entity, rejected an automatic nullity rule, vacated the circuit-court judgment as to the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation (but affirmed the judgment as to Armitage and other individual defendants) and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-attorneys may represent the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation (an unincorporated entity) in court | Non-attorneys cannot represent organizations; such representation is unauthorized practice of law and must be barred | Noa and Armitage acted as representatives and the court acquiesced; they should be permitted to proceed | Non-attorneys may not represent the entity; the circuit court should have prevented their representation and given the entity opportunity to obtain counsel |
| Effect of unauthorized representation on judgment: automatic nullity vs. case-by-case relief | A&B implicitly defended the circuit court judgment; urged enforcement of rules against unauthorized practice without overturning finality | Armitage argued that if ICA was right to dismiss the entity’s appeal, the underlying judgment against the entity must be voided | Court rejects automatic nullity rule but holds remedy depends on circumstances; vacatur required here as to the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation given pervasive, unwitting representation and policy concerns |
| Whether the ICA properly dismissed the appeal as to the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation without allowing cure | Dismissal was appropriate because non-attorney filings are invalid | Defendants argued dismissal without opportunity to obtain counsel was improper | ICA erred: it should have allowed the entity an opportunity to cure (e.g., obtain counsel or refile) before dismissing; vacatur of judgment as to the entity required |
| Whether Armitage’s due process rights were violated by the court allowing him to represent the entity, requiring vacatur of his individual judgment | Armitage claimed his defense strategy focused on the entity and would differ if sued individually; thus his due process rights were harmed | A&B: Armitage had notice and full opportunity to be heard and could and did appear pro se | Court held Armitage received meaningful process; his individual judgment stands and is affirmed; vacatur applies only to the entity |
Key Cases Cited
- Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Constr., Inc., 60 Haw. 372, 590 P.2d 570 (Haw. 1979) (non-attorney officers may not represent corporate parties; courts may enter default when entity declines to obtain counsel)
- Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1993) (rule that entities must appear through counsel applies to artificial entities generally)
- Tradewinds Hotel v. Cochran, 8 Haw. App. 256, 799 P.2d 60 (Haw. App. 1990) (courts have inherent power to prevent unauthorized practice and may act sua sponte)
- Downtown Disposal Servs., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 979 N.E.2d 50 (Ill. 2012) (rejects automatic nullity rule; directs case-by-case analysis considering factors like pervasiveness and prejudice)
- Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 773 P.2d 250 (Haw. 1989) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)