Chiang v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-MAR-2025
08:09 AM
Dkt. 57 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ELVIRA C. CHIANG,
Claimant-Appellee-Appellee,
v.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO., LLC doing business as
RITZ CARLTON KAPALUA, Employer-Appellant-Appellee,
and
MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES,
Insurance Carrier-Appellant-Appellee
and
LOWELL K.Y. CHUN-HOON and EVE L.Y. YEUNG,
Real Parties in Interest-Appellants

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB NO. 2018-161(M); DCD NO. 7-17-00457)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting C.J., and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

This appeal stems from a dispute concerning attorneys'
fees. Real Parties in Interest-Appellants Lowell K.Y. Chun-Hoon
(Chun-Hoon) and Eve L.Y. Yeung (Yeung) (together, Appellants),
who are attorneys with the law firm King, Nakamura & Chun-Hoon
(KNCH), represented Claimant-Appellee-Appellee Elvira C. Chiang
(Chiang) in the underlying workers' compensation proceeding.
Appellants appeal from the July 19, 2021 Attorney's Fee Approval
and Order (Order) and the November 18, 2021 Supplemental
Attorney's Fee Approval and Order (Supplemental Order) entered by
the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB).
Together, the Order and the Supplemental Order awarded KNCH
attorneys' fees and costs, plus tax, in the sum of $25,764.39 for
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

legal services performed by Chun-Hoon, Yeung, and KNCH attorney
Rosalyn G. Payen (Payen).1/
On June 22, 2018, the Director of the Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations (Director) entered a decision
which determined that Employer-Appellant-Appellee The Ritz-
Carlton Hotel Company, LLC (Employer) was liable for Chiang's
medical care after March 5, 2018, awarded Chiang temporary total
disability benefits, and reserved matters of permanent disability
and/or disfigurement for future determination (6/22/18 Decision).
On July 10, 2018, Employer and Insurance Carrier-Appellant-
Appellee Marriot Claims Services appealed from the 6/22/18
Decision to LIRAB. The parties reached a settlement agreement,
which LIRAB approved and entered on May 31, 2021 (Settlement).
The Settlement provided in part that each party would bear its
own attorneys' fees and costs, and those for Chiang's attorneys
were subject to LIRAB's approval.
On May 13, 2021, Chun-Hoon, Yeung, Payen, and Goods
filed requests for approval of attorneys' fees pursuant to HRS
§ 386-94.2/ On July 19, 2021, LIRAB entered the Order, which
granted in part and denied in part the fee requests. On July 28,
2021, KNHC moved for reconsideration of the Order (Motion for
Reconsideration). On November 18, 2021, LIRAB entered the
Supplemental Order, which granted in part and denied in part the
Motion for Reconsideration.
On appeal, Appellants contend that LIRAB made various
legal and factual errors, as detailed below, in the Order and the
Supplemental Order, which improperly reduced the fees awarded to
KNCH.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Appellants' contentions as follows.

1/
No fees were awarded for services provided by KNCH attorney K.
U#ilani Goods (Goods).
2/
HRS § 386-94 (Supp. 2020) states in part that an attorney's
"[c]laims for services shall not be valid unless approved by the [D]irector
or, if an appeal is had, by the appeals board or court deciding the appeal."

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

(1) Appellants challenge the following part of LIRAB's
analysis in the Order:

[LIRAB] did not approve the following tasks, because they
are clerical (non-legal) functions that are capable of being
performed by support staff, for which no professional legal
skills or analysis is required.

KNCH contends that LIRAB erred: (a) "as a matter of law when it
held that tasks of non-legal functions that did not require
professional legal skill or analysis, were clerical"; and (b) "in
finding as fact that attorneys had access to support staff."
It is well settled that "[c]ourts should reduce an
award of attorney's fees for . . . performance of clerical
functions." Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96
Hawai#i 408, 458, 32 P.3d 52, 102 (2001); see Kaleikini v.
Yoshioka, 129 Hawai#i 454, 469, 304 P.3d 252, 267 (2013) ("a
review of Kaleikini's request does not indicate that any of the
requested fees are . . . clerical"). LIRAB did not err as a
matter of law in describing clerical functions.3/ Furthermore,
LIRAB's reference to "support staff" did not amount to a factual
finding that "attorneys had access to support staff."
Appellants' contention is without merit.
(2) Appellants challenge the following part of LIRAB's
analysis in the Order:

Chun-Hoon's fee request is reduced by 0.1 hour for services
performed on March 15, 2021 because forwarding an email to
his client is not a legal service.

KNCH contends that "[LIRAB] clearly erred in finding as a fact
that . . . Chun-Hoon's March 15, 2021 billing entry was clerical
when the entry explicitly included an e-mail to [Chiang] with a
settlement authorization, which constituted legal services."
Appellants' contention has merit. The time entry at
issue, in context with surrounding entries, indicates that Chun-
Hoon forwarded a settlement authorization letter to Chiang via
email, i.e., he engaged in an attorney-client communication
regarding a legal document. The evidence does not support

3/
We do not read the challenged statement as equating paralegal
services with clerical services. See infra section (9).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

LIRAB's conclusion that this was "not a legal service." LIRAB
therefore abused its discretion in making this reduction.
(3) Appellants challenge the following part of footnote
3 in the Order:

Attorney Payen's billing entries include billing: 1.0 hour
to draft a motion that was less than 2 pages of double-
spaced text (4/20/19) . . . .

Appellants contend that "[LIRAB] clearly erred in finding as fact
that . . . Payen billed 1.0 hour to draft a motion on 4/20/19[,]"
as "Payen did not have a billing entry dated 4/20/19."
The challenged footnote is appended to the word
"excessive" in the following sentence: "Although the time spent
by Attorney Payen and Attorney Yeung on certain, specific legal
services may seem excessive, consideration was given to their
relative inexperience in workers' compensation law, their lower
hourly rate, and the need to communicate with and take direction
from Attorney Chun-Hoon to further [Chiang's] case." It does not
appear that LIRAB reduced the fee request based on the disputed
entry. Any error in describing that entry was therefore
harmless.
(4) Appellants challenge the following part of the
analysis in the Order:

Attorney Payen's fee request is reduced by 2.5 hours
because scheduling appointments, organizing files, printing,
filing, downloading documents, and compiling attorneys' fees
are not services which require professional legal skills or
analysis.

Date Billing Description (Attorney Payen) Time
04/09/2019 re-scheduling phone appointment 0.10
. . . . . . . . . . . .
09/19/2019 update and organize file 0.30
09/25/2019 Download MFS/e-mail.[] 0.40
. . . . . . . . . . . .

Appellants contend that LIRAB clearly erred in describing the
identified billing entries, because the actual entries included
additional descriptions of legal services.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Having reviewed the actual entries, we conclude that
Appellants' contention has merit. The time entries at issue
describe various legal services, including attorney-client
communications. The evidence does not support LIRAB's conclusion
to the contrary. LIRAB therefore abused its discretion in making
this reduction.
(5) and (6) Appellants challenge the following part of
the analysis in the Order:

Attorney Yeung's fee request is reduced by 8.4 hours because
scheduling appointments, confirming scheduled appointments,
organizing and assembling files, calendaring, filing
documents, transmitting documents, discussing retainer
conditions and office procedures with staff, and compiling
attorneys' fees are not services which require professional
legal skills or analysis.

Date Billing Description (Attorney Yeung) Time
09/24/2020 organize 2020 file for hearing and 0.50
settlement conference
. . . . . . . . . . . .
11/11/2020 compile requested document for 0.30
Client per her request and mail to
her
. . . . . . . . . . . .
01/27/2021 organize past correspondence, 1.40
medical reports, receipts
02/01/2021 email settlement document to client 0.10
. . . . . . . . . . . .
03/04/2021 email authorization to client 0.10
03/04/2021 email HR re authorization 0.10
03/04/2021 assemble exhibits for request for 0.20
hearing
. . . . . . . . . . . .
03/08/2021 email LCH re new settlement values 0.10
for counter offer
. . . . . . . . . . . .
03/17/2021 send email to Client re case status 0.10
. . . . . . . . . . . .
03/19/2021 email Client CSA 0.10
. . . . . . . . . . . .

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

04/20/2021 organize settlement documents and 0.40
materials

(Original ellipsis and footnotes omitted.) Appellants contend
that LIRAB clearly erred in finding that the identified billing
entries described clerical work, because the entries included
attorney-client communications regarding legal documents or
hearing and legal document preparation, which constitute legal
services.
Appellants' contention has merit. Several of the
billing entries at issue describe attorney-client communications
regarding legal documents (e.g., 11/11/2020, 02/01/2021,
03/04/2021, 03/08/2021, 03/17/2021, 03/19/2021), which constitute
legal services. LIRAB abused is discretion in reducing the
requested fees for these services. See supra. Other entries
that describe the organization and assembly of documents for
hearing and settlement purposes also appear to constitute legal
services, albeit those that might commonly be performed by a
paralegal. See infra part (9). LIRAB abused its discretion in
reducing the requested fees for these services.
(7) Appellants challenge the following part of the
analysis in the Order:

While on appeal, this case presented no novel issues
and appears to be of average complexity. The parties
addressed issues which included but are not limited to
issues surrounding [Chiang's] entitlement to medical care,
TTD benefits, permanent disability, and vocational
rehabilitation.

Appellants contend that LIRAB clearly erred in finding that this
case presented no novel issues and was of average complexity.

When mixed questions of law and fact are presented, an
appellate court must give deference to the agency's
expertise and experience in the particular field. Dole
Hawai#i Division–Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Ramil, 71 Haw. 419,
424, 794 P.2d 1115, 1118 (1990). "[T]he court should not
substitute its own judgment for that of the agency." Id.
(citing Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 216, 685 P.2d 794,
797 (1984)).

Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant, 97 Hawai#i 402, 406, 38 P.3d 570,
574 (2001) (quoting In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94
Hawai#i 97, 119, 9 P.3d 409, 431 (2000)).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Appellants argue generally that "[t]he unique
combination of legal issues presented by the appeal also
presented a novel combination of issues of greater than average
complexity in the workers' compensation area." They do not
explain specifically how this case presented novel or complex
issues. On this record, we defer to LIRAB's judgment regarding
the relative complexity of the underlying case.
(8) Appellants challenge the following part of the
analysis in the Order:

Duplicative billings by an attorney will be reduced by
[LIRAB]. Duplicative billings and billings for interoffice
communications, even among separate billers, effectively
increase the expense. Thus, where Attorney Chun-Hoon,
Attorney Payen, Attorney Yeung, and Attorney Goods billed
for time spent communicating with each other or billed for
the same legal services (e.g., reviewing a document,
attending the same conference), the time billed by the
highest billing attorney (Attorney Chun-Hoon) was allowed,
the time billing by the lower billing attorneys (Attorney
Payen, Attorney Yeung, and Attorney Goods) was reduced.

Appellants contend that "[LIRAB] erred as a matter of law in
holding that concurrent billing by more than one attorney is not
recoverable."
In Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng'g & Erection, Inc., 87
Hawai#i 37, 951 P.2d 487 (1998), the Hawai#i Supreme Court
disallowed charges sought by Fought's general counsel that it
found were "duplicative of charges also claimed by Fought's
Hawai#i counsel" and appeared unreasonable under the
circumstances presented there. Id. at 56, 951 P.2d at 506; see
also Schefke, 96 Hawai#i at 458, 32 P.3d 52 at 102 ("[c]ourts
should reduce an award of attorney's fees for . . . duplicative
efforts by the attorney and paralegal"). Accordingly, it is
within LIRAB's statutory authority to reduce requested attorney's
fees where more than one attorney in the same firm bills for the
same task, if it concludes that such fees are not reasonable
under the circumstances. See HRS 386-94 ("[I]n all cases,
reasonable attorney's fees shall be awarded."(emphasis added)).
Here, it does not appear that LIRAB ruled categorically
that "concurrent billing by more than one attorney is not
recoverable." Rather, it concluded that specific legal services
provided by Payen, Yeung, and Goods were duplicative of the same

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

services provided by Chun-Hoon. LIRAB did not abuse its
discretion in so ruling.
(9) Appellants challenge the following part of the
Supplemental Order:

Attorney Chun-Hoon contended that attorney activities that
were deducted from the fee requests because they were
considered to be clerical in nature should be allowed as
paralegal time. This argument is not credited because the
individuals who performed the deducted activities were not
paralegals. They were fully licensed attorneys. Moreover,
simply labeling a task as paralegal work does not alter its
clerical nature or transform it into a proper, billable
activity. The disallowed activities were administrative in
nature and should be part of Attorney Chun-Hoon's overhead
expenses rather than passed on to Claimant.

Appellants contend that "[LIRAB] erred as a matter of law in
denying paralegal time for non-legal duties performed by
attorneys." They do not specify the "paralegal time" at issue.
"[I]f reasonable compensation requires it, a prevailing
party must be compensated for paralegal costs." Schefke, 96
Hawai#i at 458, 32 P.3d at 102; see Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai#i 327,
334, 31 P.3d 184, 191 (2001) ("in appropriate cases, a request or
award of attorneys' fees may include compensation for separately
billed legal services performed by a paralegal, legal assistant,
or law clerk" (emphasis omitted)). Here, KNHC submitted a
declaration by Chun-Hoon, which stated in part: "The limited
experience of Ms. Payen and Ms. Yeung is reflected in their
$125.00/hourly rate, which is, in my opinion, an extremely low
hourly rate for attorney time, and a rate more appropriate for a
moderately experienced paralegal." In these circumstances, LIRAB
should have considered compensating KNHC for "paralegal work"
performed by attorneys.
It appears, however, that the only affected billing
entries are those discussed above, in parts (5) and (6), which
describe the organization and assembly of documents for hearing
and settlement purposes. We concluded that LIRAB abused its
discretion in reducing the requested fees for these services.
Appellants do not identify any other specific entries related to
their point of error.
For the reasons discussed above, we vacate the Order
and the Supplemental Order in relevant part and remand this

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

matter to LIRAB to recalculate the award of attorneys' fees to
KNCH in accordance with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 21, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Lowell K.Y. Chun-Hoon, Acting Chief Judge
Eve L.Y. Yeung, and
K. Uilani Goods
Real Parties in Interest- /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Appellants Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

9