Trust Created Under the Will of Damon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-MAY-2026
07:54 AM
Dkt. 78 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

TRUST CREATED UNDER THE WILL OF
SAMUEL M. DAMON, Deceased

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(PROBATE NO. 1LP000006664)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, and McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

These consolidated appeals concern an arbitration award
resolving an attorney fee dispute (Arbitration Award), which was
issued in favor of Lienors-Appellees Bosko Petricevic and Bosko
Petricevic Attorney at Law, LLLC (together, Lienors or
Petricevic) and against Lienors' former client, Beneficiary-
Appellant Myrna B. Murdoch (Murdoch). Murdoch appeals from the
following orders entered by the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit (Circuit Court) in Probate Case No. 1LP000006664 (Probate
Case):1/ (1) the September 26, 2023 Order Granting "Lienors[']
. . . Motion to Confirm 'Final Arbitration Decision and Award',
Dated August 9, 2023, on Behalf of Lienors . . . and to Release
Funds Held by the Court to the Lienors . . .", Filed On
August 14, 2023 - Dkt. 1687 (Order Confirming Arbitration Award);

1/
The orders arose out of a contested matter that was assigned by
the probate court to the circuit court civil trials calendar under Hawai #i
Probate Rules Rule 20(b).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

and (2) the April 23, 2026 Amended Order Denying Ms. Murdoch's
"Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award" - Dkt. 1760 (Amended Denial
Order).2/
On appeal, Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court
erred: (1) in confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration
Award despite that Petricevic "ha[d] a conflict of interest as he
still represented [Murdoch] in [civil] case [number 1CCV-20-
0000957 (Civil Case)]" at the time of the arbitration hearing;
(2) in failing to rule that the Arbitration Award "covered both
the [Probate C]ase and the [Civil C]ase"; (3) in confirming and
failing to vacate the full amount of the Arbitration Award
despite several bases for reducing the award; (4) in confirming
and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award despite that Murdoch
"was not afforded proper due process" in that "she was foreclosed
from presenting her own dispositive motion" in the arbitration;
and (5) in confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award
"despite clear bias by the arbitrator."3/
We review the Circuit Court's ruling on an arbitration
award de novo. Tatibouet v. Ellsworth, 99 Hawai#i 226, 233, 54
P.3d 397, 404 (2002). 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 Murdoch's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court should not
have confirmed and instead should have vacated the Arbitration
Award because Petricevic had a conflict of interest during the
July 12, 2023 arbitration hearing, as he still represented

2/
Murdoch originally appealed in appellate case number CAAP-24-
0000051 from the December 22, 2023 Order Denying Ms. Murdoch's "Motion to
Vacate Arbitration Award" - Dkt. 1760 (Denial Order). The Honorable James H.
Ashford entered the Order Confirming Arbitration Award and the Denial Order.
On April 13, 2026, we temporarily remanded this matter to the
Circuit Court for entry of an appealable, amended denial order that denied
Murdoch's motion to vacate the Arbitration Award and also reconfirmed the
award. On April 23, 2026, the Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura entered the
Amended Denial Order, which perfected the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX under
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(2).
3/
Murdoch raises this bias contention as part of her fourth point of
error, but then presents a separate supporting argument in the argument
section of her opening brief.

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

Murdoch in the Civil Case at that time. She argues that
Petricevic "dragged his feet" in withdrawing from representing
her after "being fired on February 6, 2023," she had a right to
have a counsel free of conflicts, and Petricevic's conflict
rendered the arbitration void. She further argues that she was
prejudiced because she was "unable to file oppositional filings"
in the Civil Case, as electronic notices in that case were still
being sent to Petricevic.
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-22 (2016)
provides:

After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives
notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court
for an order confirming the award at which time the court
shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified
or corrected pursuant to section 658A-20 or 658A-24 or is
vacated pursuant to section 658A-23.

"'Judicial review of an arbitration award is confined to the
strictest possible limits,' and a court may only vacate an award
on the grounds specified in HRS § 658A–23 and modify or correct
on the grounds specified in HRS § 658A–24." In re Grievance
Arbitration Between State Org. of Police Officers, 135 Hawai#i
456, 461, 353 P.3d 998, 1003 (2015) (brackets and some internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Daiichi Haw. Real Est. Corp. v.
Lichter, 103 Hawai#i 325, 336, 82 P.3d 411, 422 (2003)).
HRS § 658A-23(a) (2016) provides:

Upon motion to the court by a party to an arbitration
proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the
arbitration proceeding if:
(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or
other undue means;
(2) There was:

(A) Evident partiality by an arbitrator
appointed as a neutral arbitrator;
(B) Corruption by an arbitrator; or
(C) Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing
the rights of a party to the arbitration
proceeding;
(3) An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing
upon showing of sufficient cause for
postponement, refused to consider evidence
material to the controversy, or otherwise
conducted the hearing contrary to section
658A-15, so as to prejudice substantially the

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

rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(4) An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;

(5) There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the
person participated in the arbitration
proceeding without raising the objection under
section 658A-15(c) not later than the beginning
of the arbitration hearing; or
(6) The arbitration was conducted without proper
notice of the initiation of an arbitration as
required in section 658A-9 so as to prejudice
substantially the rights of a party to the
arbitration proceeding.

In arguing that the Arbitration Award should have been
vacated, Murdoch does not invoke a specific provision of HRS
§ 658A-23(a) in her opening brief. In her reply brief, she
invokes subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4), arguing summarily that
"all of [her] points of error fit under [each] subsection[,]"
without specific explanation. In the absence of a discernible
argument (see HRAP Rule 28(b)(7)), we address Murdoch's conflict-
of-interest contention through the lens of HRS § 658A-23(a)(1),
which requires vacating an award obtained by corruption, fraud,
or "other undue means[.]"
Here, there is no dispute that Murdoch "fired"
Petricevic as her counsel no later than March 16, 2023 – long
before the July 12, 2023 arbitration hearing.4/ There is also no
dispute that Petricevic formally withdrew from his representation
of Murdoch in the Probate Case months before that hearing. On
March 31, 2023, he filed his motion to withdraw, and on May 17,
2023, the Circuit Court entered its order granting the motion.5/
There is also no dispute that Petricevic did not and could not
represent Murdoch in the arbitration of the parties' fee dispute.
True, Petricevic was still Murdoch's counsel of record in the
Civil Case when the arbitration occurred, as Petricevic filed a
motion to withdraw in the Civil Case on August 4, 2023, and the
Circuit Court entered the order granting the motion on

4/
Murdoch asserts that she "fired" Petricevic on February 6, 2023.
See supra. Either way, Murdoch sought to terminate their attorney-client
relationship several months before the arbitration hearing.
5/
Then, on May 18, 2023, the Circuit Court entered its order
granting Petricevic's March 31, 2023 motion to compel arbitration of the fee
dispute.

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

September 6, 2023. Murdoch contends she was unable to file
responsive documents in the Civil Case until Petricevic withdrew.
However, Murdoch does not explain how Petricevic's residual
counsel-of-record status in the Civil Case, when their attorney-
client relationship had otherwise ended, could have affected the
arbitration of the parties' fee dispute in the Probate Case or
the validity of the resulting award.6/ And she provides no
authority for her assertion that this residual status in the
Civil Case rendered the arbitration "void" or otherwise led to an
award that was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue
means. The Circuit Court did not err in confirming and not
vacating the Arbitration Award in these circumstances.
(2) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
failing to rule that the Arbitration Award "covered," or "was
binding as to," both the Probate Case and the Civil Case.
Although her argument is unclear, it appears Murdoch may be
contending that the Circuit Court erred in not ruling that the
Arbitration Award satisfied all outstanding claims for attorney's
fees (and corresponding attorney's liens) by Petricevic against
her in both the Probate Case and the Civil Case.
As a threshold matter, Murdoch did not make this
argument in her opposition to Petricevic's motion to confirm, or
in her own motion to vacate, the Arbitration Award. She asserted
in the hearing on the motions that the arbitration demand and
"the confirmation for the fees" was "for both cases," but she did
not request an affirmative ruling from the Circuit Court on that
issue, and the Circuit Court made clear that "I have no intention
of doing anything with the lien in [the Civil Case] . . . .
There's nothing pending before me in that case today."7/ The

6/
We do not mean to suggest that Petricevic's professional
responsibilities to Murdoch in the Civil Case ended before he withdrew in that
case. They did not. See, e.g., Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct Rule
1.16(a)(3) (mandating that a lawyer "shall withdraw from the representation of
a client if: . . . (3) the lawyer is discharged") and Rule 1.16(c) (requiring
that "[a] lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or
permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation").
7/
The court further stated that "[i]f anything is eventually awarded
in Ms. Murdoch's favor in [the Civil Case], then the merits of Mr.
Petricevic's lien on any future award or judgment or decree or whatever it is,
can be addressed [in the Civil Case]."

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

issue is thus deemed waived for purposes of this appeal. See
Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co.,
100 Hawai#i 97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002).
In any event, Murdoch has not shown how this issue
required vacating the Arbitration Award on any of the grounds
specified in HRS § 658A–23(a). Her argument therefore lacks
merit.
(3) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
confirming and failing to vacate the full amount of the
Arbitration Award despite that: (a) the Circuit Court had
previously denied fees to Petricevic for his motion to compel
arbitration; (b) the costs awarded to Petricevic were not
pre-approved as required by the parties' fee agreement; (c) the
arbitrator ordered Murdoch to pay general excise (GE) tax that
"was never prayed for"; and (d) Petricevic's "additional hourly
fees were charged at $375/hour, rather than the $160/hour agreed
to in the fee agreement."
Murdoch essentially seeks to correct alleged legal and
factual errors made by the arbitrator in reaching his final
decision. HRS § 658A-23 does not authorize vacatur of an
arbitration award for this purpose. "[W]here the parties agree
to arbitrate, they thereby assume all the hazards of the
arbitration process, including the risk that the arbitrators may
make mistakes in the application of law and in their findings of
fact." Nordic PCL Constr., Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC, 136 Hawai#i 29,
42, 358 P.3d 1, 14 (2015) (quoting Daiichi Haw. Real Est. Corp.,
103 Hawai#i at 336, 82 P.3d at 422). Murdoch assumed that risk
here. The Circuit Court did not err in confirming and not
vacating the Arbitration Award in these circumstances.
(4) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award despite
that Murdoch was "not afforded proper due process" in that she
was prevented from presenting her own dispositive motion in the
arbitration. She argues that the arbitrator "repeatedly
pressured her" to treat her response to Petricevic's dispositive
motion as her own dispositive motion, and she trusted the
arbitrator and "follow[ed] his suggestion" without fully

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

understanding "the implications of her choice."
"The basic elements of procedural due process of law
require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner." Alexander & Baldwin, LLC v.
Armitage, 151 Hawai#i 37, 54, 508 P.3d 832, 849 (2022) (brackets
omitted) (quoting Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City Council of
Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 378, 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989)). Murdoch
has not shown that the arbitrator deprived her of an opportunity
to file her own motion, and she does not dispute that she had an
opportunity to respond to Petricevic's motion. For purposes of
HRS § 658A-23(a)(3), Murdoch has not shown that the arbitrator
"conducted the hearing contrary to section 658A-15," so as to
substantially prejudice her rights. Her due process argument
lacks merit.
(5) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award despite
"clear bias by the arbitrator." She argues that the arbitrator
showed bias by disregarding the fact that Petricevic still
represented her in the Civil Case during the arbitration, by
granting Petricevic fees for the motion to compel arbitration, by
"tipp[ing] off" Petricevic that he had neglected to request GE
tax, by disregarding portions of the fee agreement to favor
Petricevic, by "allow[ing]" Petricevic to "taunt and belittle"
Murdoch in group emails, and by "allow[ing] only . . .
[Petricevic] to file a dispositive motion in the arbitration[.]"
Under HRS § 658A-23(a)(2)(A), the court must vacate an
arbitration award upon a showing of "[e]vident partiality by an
arbitrator appointed to serve as a neutral arbitrator[.]"
"Evident partiality may be found in two situations: when an
arbitrator fails to make necessary disclosures to the parties, or
when additional facts show actual bias or improper motive, even
if the arbitrator makes the necessary disclosures." Narayan v.
Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Kapalua Bay Condo., 140 Hawai#i 75, 84,
398 P.3d 664, 673 (2017). Here, Murdoch does not assert that the
arbitrator failed to make necessary disclosures; she contends
that the arbitrator showed actual bias in favor of Petricevic
during the course of the arbitration proceeding. "In 'actual

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

bias' cases, where the fact of nondisclosure is not present,
parties must prove specific facts, beyond those disclosed,
indicating bias." Id. at 84 n.12, 398 P.3d at 673 n.12.
Here, Murdoch did not show specific facts indicating
the arbitrator's alleged bias. We have rejected Murdoch's
argument that Petricevic had a conflict of interest that rendered
the Arbitration Award void. We have also determined that Murdoch
assumed the risk of alleged legal errors by the arbitrator. See
supra. These alleged errors do not indicate bias. Moreover,
Murdoch has cited no evidence supporting her allegation that the
arbitrator "tipped off" Petricevic to the GE tax issue – just the
arbitrator's July 14, 2023 Interim Decision and Order concluding
that GE tax "was not requested in the MSJ and is not awarded."
She has cited nothing in the record to support her allegation
that Petricevic "taunt[ed] and belittl[ed]" her in group emails.
And she has failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator prevented
her from filing her own dispositive motion. See supra. In sum,
Murdoch has not shown that there was "[e]vident partiality by
[the A]rbitrator" or "[m]isconduct by [the A]rbitrator
prejudicing [her] rights . . . ." HRS § 658A-23(a)(2)(A) and
(C). Her argument therefore lacks merit.
For the reasons discussed above, the Order Confirming
Arbitration Award and the Amended Denial Order are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 21, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Kai Lawrence Presiding Judge
for Beneficiary-Appellant.

Bosko Petricevic /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Lienors-Appellees. Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

8

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-MAY-2026
07:54 AM
Dkt. 78 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

TRUST CREATED UNDER THE WILL OF
SAMUEL M. DAMON, Deceased

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(PROBATE NO. 1LP000006664)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, and McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

These consolidated appeals concern an arbitration award
resolving an attorney fee dispute (Arbitration Award), which was
issued in favor of Lienors-Appellees Bosko Petricevic and Bosko
Petricevic Attorney at Law, LLLC (together, Lienors or
Petricevic) and against Lienors' former client, Beneficiary-
Appellant Myrna B. Murdoch (Murdoch). Murdoch appeals from the
following orders entered by the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit (Circuit Court) in Probate Case No. 1LP000006664 (Probate
Case):1/ (1) the September 26, 2023 Order Granting "Lienors[']
. . . Motion to Confirm 'Final Arbitration Decision and Award',
Dated August 9, 2023, on Behalf of Lienors . . . and to Release
Funds Held by the Court to the Lienors . . .", Filed On
August 14, 2023 - Dkt. 1687 (Order Confirming Arbitration Award);

1/
The orders arose out of a contested matter that was assigned by
the probate court to the circuit court civil trials calendar under Hawai #i
Probate Rules Rule 20(b).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

and (2) the April 23, 2026 Amended Order Denying Ms. Murdoch's
"Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award" - Dkt. 1760 (Amended Denial
Order).2/
On appeal, Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court
erred: (1) in confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration
Award despite that Petricevic "ha[d] a conflict of interest as he
still represented [Murdoch] in [civil] case [number 1CCV-20-
0000957 (Civil Case)]" at the time of the arbitration hearing;
(2) in failing to rule that the Arbitration Award "covered both
the [Probate C]ase and the [Civil C]ase"; (3) in confirming and
failing to vacate the full amount of the Arbitration Award
despite several bases for reducing the award; (4) in confirming
and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award despite that Murdoch
"was not afforded proper due process" in that "she was foreclosed
from presenting her own dispositive motion" in the arbitration;
and (5) in confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award
"despite clear bias by the arbitrator."3/
We review the Circuit Court's ruling on an arbitration
award de novo. Tatibouet v. Ellsworth, 99 Hawai#i 226, 233, 54
P.3d 397, 404 (2002). 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 Murdoch's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court should not
have confirmed and instead should have vacated the Arbitration
Award because Petricevic had a conflict of interest during the
July 12, 2023 arbitration hearing, as he still represented

2/
Murdoch originally appealed in appellate case number CAAP-24-
0000051 from the December 22, 2023 Order Denying Ms. Murdoch's "Motion to
Vacate Arbitration Award" - Dkt. 1760 (Denial Order). The Honorable James H.
Ashford entered the Order Confirming Arbitration Award and the Denial Order.

On April 13, 2026, we temporarily remanded this matter to the
Circuit Court for entry of an appealable, amended denial order that denied
Murdoch's motion to vacate the Arbitration Award and also reconfirmed the
award. On April 23, 2026, the Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura entered the
Amended Denial Order, which perfected the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX under
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(2).
3/
Murdoch raises this bias contention as part of her fourth point of
error, but then presents a separate supporting argument in the argument
section of her opening brief.

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

Murdoch in the Civil Case at that time. She argues that
Petricevic "dragged his feet" in withdrawing from representing
her after "being fired on February 6, 2023," she had a right to
have a counsel free of conflicts, and Petricevic's conflict
rendered the arbitration void. She further argues that she was
prejudiced because she was "unable to file oppositional filings"
in the Civil Case, as electronic notices in that case were still
being sent to Petricevic.
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-22 (2016)
provides:

After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives
notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court
for an order confirming the award at which time the court
shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified
or corrected pursuant to section 658A-20 or 658A-24 or is
vacated pursuant to section 658A-23.

"'Judicial review of an arbitration award is confined to the
strictest possible limits,' and a court may only vacate an award
on the grounds specified in HRS § 658A–23 and modify or correct
on the grounds specified in HRS § 658A–24." In re Grievance
Arbitration Between State Org. of Police Officers, 135 Hawai#i
456, 461, 353 P.3d 998, 1003 (2015) (brackets and some internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Daiichi Haw. Real Est. Corp. v.
Lichter, 103 Hawai#i 325, 336, 82 P.3d 411, 422 (2003)).
HRS § 658A-23(a) (2016) provides:

Upon motion to the court by a party to an arbitration
proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the
arbitration proceeding if:

(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or
other undue means;
(2) There was:

(A) Evident partiality by an arbitrator
appointed as a neutral arbitrator;
(B) Corruption by an arbitrator; or
(C) Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing
the rights of a party to the arbitration
proceeding;
(3) An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing
upon showing of sufficient cause for
postponement, refused to consider evidence
material to the controversy, or otherwise
conducted the hearing contrary to section
658A-15, so as to prejudice substantially the

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

rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(4) An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
(5) There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the
person participated in the arbitration
proceeding without raising the objection under
section 658A-15(c) not later than the beginning
of the arbitration hearing; or
(6) The arbitration was conducted without proper
notice of the initiation of an arbitration as
required in section 658A-9 so as to prejudice
substantially the rights of a party to the
arbitration proceeding.

In arguing that the Arbitration Award should have been
vacated, Murdoch does not invoke a specific provision of HRS
§ 658A-23(a) in her opening brief. In her reply brief, she
invokes subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4), arguing summarily that
"all of [her] points of error fit under [each] subsection[,]"
without specific explanation. In the absence of a discernible
argument (see HRAP Rule 28(b)(7)), we address Murdoch's conflict-
of-interest contention through the lens of HRS § 658A-23(a)(1),
which requires vacating an award obtained by corruption, fraud,
or "other undue means[.]"
Here, there is no dispute that Murdoch "fired"
Petricevic as her counsel no later than March 16, 2023 – long
before the July 12, 2023 arbitration hearing.4/ There is also no
dispute that Petricevic formally withdrew from his representation
of Murdoch in the Probate Case months before that hearing. On
March 31, 2023, he filed his motion to withdraw, and on May 17,
2023, the Circuit Court entered its order granting the motion.5/
There is also no dispute that Petricevic did not and could not
represent Murdoch in the arbitration of the parties' fee dispute.
True, Petricevic was still Murdoch's counsel of record in the
Civil Case when the arbitration occurred, as Petricevic filed a
motion to withdraw in the Civil Case on August 4, 2023, and the
Circuit Court entered the order granting the motion on

4/
Murdoch asserts that she "fired" Petricevic on February 6, 2023.
See supra. Either way, Murdoch sought to terminate their attorney-client
relationship several months before the arbitration hearing.
5/
Then, on May 18, 2023, the Circuit Court entered its order
granting Petricevic's March 31, 2023 motion to compel arbitration of the fee
dispute.

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

September 6, 2023. Murdoch contends she was unable to file
responsive documents in the Civil Case until Petricevic withdrew.
However, Murdoch does not explain how Petricevic's residual
counsel-of-record status in the Civil Case, when their attorney-
client relationship had otherwise ended, could have affected the
arbitration of the parties' fee dispute in the Probate Case or
the validity of the resulting award.6/ And she provides no
authority for her assertion that this residual status in the
Civil Case rendered the arbitration "void" or otherwise led to an
award that was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue
means. The Circuit Court did not err in confirming and not
vacating the Arbitration Award in these circumstances.
(2) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
failing to rule that the Arbitration Award "covered," or "was
binding as to," both the Probate Case and the Civil Case.
Although her argument is unclear, it appears Murdoch may be
contending that the Circuit Court erred in not ruling that the
Arbitration Award satisfied all outstanding claims for attorney's
fees (and corresponding attorney's liens) by Petricevic against
her in both the Probate Case and the Civil Case.
As a threshold matter, Murdoch did not make this
argument in her opposition to Petricevic's motion to confirm, or
in her own motion to vacate, the Arbitration Award. She asserted
in the hearing on the motions that the arbitration demand and
"the confirmation for the fees" was "for both cases," but she did
not request an affirmative ruling from the Circuit Court on that
issue, and the Circuit Court made clear that "I have no intention
of doing anything with the lien in [the Civil Case] . . . .
There's nothing pending before me in that case today."7/ The

6/
We do not mean to suggest that Petricevic's professional
responsibilities to Murdoch in the Civil Case ended before he withdrew in that
case. They did not. See, e.g., Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct Rule
1.16(a)(3) (mandating that a lawyer "shall withdraw from the representation of
a client if: . . . (3) the lawyer is discharged") and Rule 1.16(c) (requiring
that "[a] lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or
permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation").
7/
The court further stated that "[i]f anything is eventually awarded
in Ms. Murdoch's favor in [the Civil Case], then the merits of Mr.
Petricevic's lien on any future award or judgment or decree or whatever it is,
can be addressed [in the Civil Case]."

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

issue is thus deemed waived for purposes of this appeal. See
Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co.,
100 Hawai#i 97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002).
In any event, Murdoch has not shown how this issue
required vacating the Arbitration Award on any of the grounds
specified in HRS § 658A–23(a). Her argument therefore lacks
merit.
(3) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
confirming and failing to vacate the full amount of the
Arbitration Award despite that: (a) the Circuit Court had
previously denied fees to Petricevic for his motion to compel
arbitration; (b) the costs awarded to Petricevic were not
pre-approved as required by the parties' fee agreement; (c) the
arbitrator ordered Murdoch to pay general excise (GE) tax that
"was never prayed for"; and (d) Petricevic's "additional hourly
fees were charged at $375/hour, rather than the $160/hour agreed
to in the fee agreement."
Murdoch essentially seeks to correct alleged legal and
factual errors made by the arbitrator in reaching his final
decision. HRS § 658A-23 does not authorize vacatur of an
arbitration award for this purpose. "[W]here the parties agree
to arbitrate, they thereby assume all the hazards of the
arbitration process, including the risk that the arbitrators may
make mistakes in the application of law and in their findings of
fact." Nordic PCL Constr., Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC, 136 Hawai#i 29,
42, 358 P.3d 1, 14 (2015) (quoting Daiichi Haw. Real Est. Corp.,
103 Hawai#i at 336, 82 P.3d at 422). Murdoch assumed that risk
here. The Circuit Court did not err in confirming and not
vacating the Arbitration Award in these circumstances.
(4) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award despite
that Murdoch was "not afforded proper due process" in that she
was prevented from presenting her own dispositive motion in the
arbitration. She argues that the arbitrator "repeatedly
pressured her" to treat her response to Petricevic's dispositive
motion as her own dispositive motion, and she trusted the
arbitrator and "follow[ed] his suggestion" without fully

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

understanding "the implications of her choice."
"The basic elements of procedural due process of law
require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner." Alexander & Baldwin, LLC v.
Armitage, 151 Hawai#i 37, 54, 508 P.3d 832, 849 (2022) (brackets
omitted) (quoting Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City Council of
Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 378, 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989)). Murdoch
has not shown that the arbitrator deprived her of an opportunity
to file her own motion, and she does not dispute that she had an
opportunity to respond to Petricevic's motion. For purposes of
HRS § 658A-23(a)(3), Murdoch has not shown that the arbitrator
"conducted the hearing contrary to section 658A-15," so as to
substantially prejudice her rights. Her due process argument
lacks merit.
(5) Murdoch contends that the Circuit Court erred in
confirming and failing to vacate the Arbitration Award despite
"clear bias by the arbitrator." She argues that the arbitrator
showed bias by disregarding the fact that Petricevic still
represented her in the Civil Case during the arbitration, by
granting Petricevic fees for the motion to compel arbitration, by
"tipp[ing] off" Petricevic that he had neglected to request GE
tax, by disregarding portions of the fee agreement to favor
Petricevic, by "allow[ing]" Petricevic to "taunt and belittle"
Murdoch in group emails, and by "allow[ing] only . . .
[Petricevic] to file a dispositive motion in the arbitration[.]"
Under HRS § 658A-23(a)(2)(A), the court must vacate an
arbitration award upon a showing of "[e]vident partiality by an
arbitrator appointed to serve as a neutral arbitrator[.]"
"Evident partiality may be found in two situations: when an
arbitrator fails to make necessary disclosures to the parties, or
when additional facts show actual bias or improper motive, even
if the arbitrator makes the necessary disclosures." Narayan v.
Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Kapalua Bay Condo., 140 Hawai#i 75, 84,
398 P.3d 664, 673 (2017). Here, Murdoch does not assert that the
arbitrator failed to make necessary disclosures; she contends
that the arbitrator showed actual bias in favor of Petricevic
during the course of the arbitration proceeding. "In 'actual

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

bias' cases, where the fact of nondisclosure is not present,
parties must prove specific facts, beyond those disclosed,
indicating bias." Id. at 84 n.12, 398 P.3d at 673 n.12.
Here, Murdoch did not show specific facts indicating
the arbitrator's alleged bias. We have rejected Murdoch's
argument that Petricevic had a conflict of interest that rendered
the Arbitration Award void. We have also determined that Murdoch
assumed the risk of alleged legal errors by the arbitrator. See
supra. These alleged errors do not indicate bias. Moreover,
Murdoch has cited no evidence supporting her allegation that the
arbitrator "tipped off" Petricevic to the GE tax issue – just the
arbitrator's July 14, 2023 Interim Decision and Order concluding
that GE tax "was not requested in the MSJ and is not awarded."
She has cited nothing in the record to support her allegation
that Petricevic "taunt[ed] and belittl[ed]" her in group emails.
And she has failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator prevented
her from filing her own dispositive motion. See supra. In sum,
Murdoch has not shown that there was "[e]vident partiality by
[the A]rbitrator" or "[m]isconduct by [the A]rbitrator
prejudicing [her] rights . . . ." HRS § 658A-23(a)(2)(A) and
(C). Her argument therefore lacks merit.
For the reasons discussed above, the Order Confirming
Arbitration Award and the Amended Denial Order are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 21, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Kai Lawrence Presiding Judge
for Beneficiary-Appellant.

Bosko Petricevic /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Lienors-Appellees. Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

8