Seven years ago, civil attorney Kevin Sumida took to the witness stand during a high-profile criminal trial and was accused of lying to a federal prosecutor. 

Now, all this time later, he could face disciplinary action from the state agency charged with investigating attorney misconduct. 

Last week, Sumida appeared before the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court to defend himself from allegations that he knowingly lied under oath while testifying in the 2019 trial. It centered on charges that Katherine Kealoha, a former city prosecutor, and her husband, Louis — Honolulu’s former police chief — had framed a family member for the theft of their mailbox. 

The motive for the frame job, according to prosecutors, was a lawsuit Katherine Kealoha’s uncle had filed against her accusing her of bilking him and his elderly mother out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sumida was Kealoha’s attorney in that previous case, and prosecutors had presented evidence showing that Kealoha relied on forged documents to help perpetuate the scheme and win the lawsuit. 

During a break in the 2019 trial, Sumida was seen shuffling through documents on the witness stand, possibly even removing records from the stack of paperwork. When he was questioned about it by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wheat, the lead prosecutor in the case, Sumida said on three separate occasions that he wasn’t looking through the files despite video evidence that he had.

The Disciplinary Board Weighs In

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel received complaints from at least two people, one of whom was U.S. District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright, who was presiding over the criminal trial. 

During the course of the disciplinary counsel’s investigation, both Seabright and Wheat were called as witnesses. A hearings officer ultimately recommended Sumida be punished with a “private informal admonition,” the lowest form of discipline. 

But last Thursday the case went to the disciplinary board. There, Dana Harada — a disciplinary counsel attorney — pushed for a public reprimand or suspension. She told the board that Sumida’s misconduct, while seemingly minor, happened in an open courtroom during a high stakes public corruption trial. Anything less than a public response from the disciplinary board, she said, “sends exactly the wrong message.”

“Telling the truth is not an aspirational ideal in this profession, it’s a foundational duty,” Harada said. “When an attorney knowingly gives false testimony regarding documents that are material to the case before the jury, he strikes at the core of the justice system itself.”

Harada also pointed to the fact that Sumida did not accept responsibility or admit any wrongdoing even when the statute of limitations for potential criminal prosecution for perjury had passed. 

“Frankly, his behavior is not the behavior of a person of good moral character,” Harada said, “but of someone who is trying to avoid accountability after being caught doing something that he thought he could get away with.”

Sumida and his attorney, Wesley Ching, offered their own version of events. 

Ching told the board that during trial Sumida was “full of anxiety and nervous energy while he waited at the witness stand” and when he started thumbing through his papers “he was not consciously aware of what he was doing.” 

He also pointed to Sumida’s discipline-free career, which spans more than 40 years, which he argued should be considered by the board as they make their final decision. 

The disciplinary board did not announce a decision on Sumida’s possible punishment Thursday but will issue a ruling in the coming months.