Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5
(b) The court shall determine the amount of reasonable compensation to appointed counsel, based on the rate of $150 an hour; provided that the maximum allowable fee shall not exceed the following schedule:
(6) Any other type of administrative or
judicial proceeding, including cases
arising under section 571-11(1) or
571-14(a)(1) or (2) $6,000.
Payment in excess of any maximum provided for under paragraphs (1) to (6) may be made whenever the court in which the representation was rendered certifies that the amount of the excess payment is necessary to provide fair compensation and the payment is approved by the administrative judge of that court.
[L 1971, c 185, pt of §1; HRS §705C-5; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L Sp 1981 1st, c 22, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 227, §1; am L 2004, c 202, §78; am L 2005, c 86, §§1, 2; am L 2006, c 94, §1 and c 133, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1; am L 2015, c 231, §6; am L 2021, c 58, §10; am L 2025, c 199, §1]
Total fees cannot exceed twice the maximum scheduled fee. 66 H. 366, 663 P.2d 630 (1983).
The language of this section does not empower the Hawaii supreme court to compensate attorneys for services rendered before the United States Supreme Court. 95 H. 28, 18 P.3d 890 (2001).
Under subsection (b), both the trial judge and the administrative judge independently review excess fee requests to determine whether a fee award is "fair compensation"; both the trial judge's and the administrative judge's orders awarding fees under subsection (b) are judicial acts subject to appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard; to enable appellate review of excess fee awards, if a fee request is reduced, it is necessary for the judge reducing the request to set forth reasons for the reduction in order to determine whether the judge abused the judge's discretion in ordering reduced fees. 126 H. 26, 265 P.3d 1122 (2011).
"Case" means all matters within numbered case, not each count. 6 H. App. 20, 709 P.2d 105 (1985).
Where record indicated petitioner did not waive right to appeal and trial counsel did not take steps to prosecute appeal, petitioner's allegation of denial of effective assistance of counsel on appeal presented colorable claim for post-conviction relief. 81 H. 185 (App.), 914 P.2d 1378 (1996).
Discussed: 97 H. 1, 32 P.3d 647 (2001).