Hawaiʻi Attorney Kevin Sumida Faces Disciplinary Action Over Kealoha Trial Testimony

Honolulu civil attorney Kevin Sumida could face disciplinary action from the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court stemming from allegations he knowingly lied under oath during the 2019 trial of former Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha and former city prosecutor Katherine Kealoha. The case centers around accusations that the Kealohas framed a family member for the theft of their mailbox.

Background of the Case

The allegations against Sumida arose during the trial concerning the Kealohas’ alleged framing of Katherine Kealoha’s uncle, who had accused her of financial misconduct. Prosecutors presented evidence suggesting Katherine Kealoha relied on forged documents in a previous lawsuit with her uncle. Sumida had previously represented Katherine Kealoha in that earlier case.

The Alleged False Testimony

During a break in the 2019 trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wheat questioned Sumida about whether he had been reviewing documents on the witness stand. According to prosecutors, video evidence showed Sumida shuffling through papers and potentially removing records. Sumida reportedly denied looking through the files on three separate occasions.

Disciplinary Proceedings

Complaints were filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, including one from U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, who presided over the criminal trial. A hearings officer initially recommended a “private informal admonition” – the lowest level of discipline. However, during a hearing before the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court last week, disciplinary counsel attorney Dana Harada argued for a more severe penalty, such as a public reprimand or suspension.

Arguments Before the Board

Harada emphasized that knowingly providing false testimony “strikes at the core of the justice system.” She argued that any response less than a public reprimand would send the “wrong message.” She likewise noted that Sumida had not accepted responsibility for his actions, even after the statute of limitations for potential criminal charges had expired.

Sumida’s attorney, Wesley Ching, countered that Sumida was experiencing “anxiety and nervous energy” while on the stand and was not consciously aware of his actions when he reviewed the documents. Ching also highlighted Sumida’s 40-year career without prior disciplinary issues.

Next Steps

The Disciplinary Board did not announce a decision at the hearing and is expected to issue a ruling in the coming months. Potential punishments range from a private admonition to suspension or even disbarment. The board will weigh the seriousness of the misconduct, any prior discipline, and whether Sumida accepts responsibility.