Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Graham v. Collins - Order Denying Petition for ...
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Graham v. Collins - Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Favicon for www.courts.state.hi.us Hawaii Supreme Court
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The Hawaii Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the disqualification of counsel in underlying case 2DRC-24-0001244. The court found that counsel's former representation of Ridesmart Maui LLC was substantially related to the pending litigation, and the interests of former and present clients were materially adverse, warranting disqualification under HRPC Rule 1.9(a). The district court's disqualification order did not amount to a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion under the standard established in Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi.

Published by HI Supreme Ct on courts.state.hi.us . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

What changed

The Hawaii Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed August 19, 2025, challenging the disqualification of counsel in the underlying District Court case. The disqualification was based on HRPC Rule 1.9(a), which prohibits attorneys from representing parties with materially adverse interests when the new representation is substantially related to prior representation. The court applied the 'flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion' standard from Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi and found the district court's order met that threshold.

For legal professionals and their clients, this order confirms that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy with a high bar for intervention in disqualification matters. Parties facing disqualification must proceed with new counsel or pursue alternative remedies, as the appellate courts will not lightly overturn disqualification orders under this standard.

Archived snapshot

Apr 16, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-25-0000578 16-APR-2026 08:53 AM Dkt. 6 ODDP SCPW-25-0000578 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________ NATHANIEL GRAHAM; JOEL KREISS; and HAWAII'S ELECTRIC BIKE, LLC dba RIDESMART MAUI, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE LANCE COLLINS, Judge of the District Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai iʻ , Respondent Judge, and RIDESMART MAUI LLC; LEE A. CHAMBERLAIN, Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 2DRC-24-0001244) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Holma, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus filed August 19, 2025, and the record, counsel's former representation of Respondent Ridesmart Maui LLC is substantially related to the litigation in 2DRC-24-0001244. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rule 1.9(a); Straub Clinic &

Hosp. v. Kochi, 81 Hawaiʻi 410, 414-17, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288-91 (1996). Additionally, the interests of counsel's former and present clients are materially adverse to each other in 2DRC-24-

  1. See HRPC Rule 1.9(a); Straub, 81 Hawaiʻi at 417, 917 P.2d at 1291. The district court's order granting the motion to disqualify counsel does not amount to a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion. See Straub, 81 Hawaiʻi at 414-15, 917 P.2d at 1288-89. It is ordered that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 16, 2026. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Vladimir P. Devens /s/ Karin L. Holma

Named provisions

HRPC Rule 1.9(a)

Get daily alerts for Hawaii Supreme Court

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from HI Supreme Ct.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
HI Supreme Ct
Filed
April 16th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive
Document ID
SCPW-25-0000578
Docket
SCPW-25-0000578 2DRC-24-0001244

Who this affects

Applies to
Legal professionals Courts
Industry sector
5411 Legal Services
Activity scope
Attorney disqualification Conflict of interest Legal ethics
Geographic scope
US-HI US-HI

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Employment & Labor

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when Hawaii Supreme Court publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!