Chief Disciplinary Counsel Laureen K.K. Wong resigned effective July 5, 18 months after taking the job.

Her resignation was not publicly announced by the board, and it came as a surprise to many attorneys contacted by the Star-Bulletin this week.

Desmond Byrne of Common Cause/Hawaii criticized the lack of information.

"This is a public body, and certainly the basic facts should be open and clear, including what date she departed and under what circumstances," Byrne said.

"Because of the secrecy in this case, the question that comes up for the public is whether she was ineffective or too effective. Did she get pushed out? Was she performing her job too well?"

Although certain information about government employees is confidential under state law, the secrecy surrounding Wong's unexpected resignation is far broader than usual.

Those involved point to a confidentiality clause contained in an agreement between Wong and the board as justification for the extended secrecy.

Disciplinary Board Chairman James A. Kawachika declined to comment or explain the need for confidentiality, and refused to confirm the date of Wong's resignation. "I can't tell you anything," he said.

Kawachika said the board has not decided how or when it will select Wong's replacement.

Attorney James Bickerton said there is an agreement that the matter would not be publicly discussed.

"I was directly involved and I am precluded from discussing it," he said.

Bickerton would not say whether a severance payment to Wong was part of the agreement with the Disciplinary Board.

Before taking the disciplinary counsel position in January 1995, Wong was a deputy attorney general representing the state consumer advocate in hearings of the Public Utilities Commission. She previously was on the staff of the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii.

Wong could not be reached for comment.

Chief Justice Ronald Moon "was neither consulted about, nor approved or disapproved" any agreement between Wong and the board, said Supreme Court staff attorney James Branham.

Branham said he knew nothing about the resignation or confidentiality agreement. Under court rules, the hiring, firing or resignation of the disciplinary counsel is handled by the board, although the court retains ultimate legal authority, Branham said.

Hawaii State Bar Association Executive Director Coralie Matayoshi said her office only learned of Wong's resignation by accident. "We called to confirm a meeting date and found she had resigned," Matayoshi said. "There was not a lot of advance notice."

The Office of the Disciplinary Counsel is at the center of the process that regulates conduct of the 4,000 attorneys in Hawaii.

The office is administered by the Disciplinary Board, appointed by the Supreme Court.

Hawaii has lagged behind a national trend toward increased openness in the disciplinary process. Supreme Court rules require complaints to remain confidential except in the few cases where the board recommends disbarment, suspension, or a public censure or reprimand.

During 1995, there were 509 grievances filed with the office, said Carole Richelieu, acting chief disciplinary counsel. Of the total, 341 were accepted for formal investigation while the rest were either resolved informally or dropped for lack of evidence or jurisdiction.

Disciplinary proceedings resulted in one attorney being disbarred, one allowed to resign, and three suspended. There also was a single public censure, one public reprimand and 32 private informal admonitions.

Few attorneys are disciplined, in part, because complaints must be supported by "clear and convincing evidence" to be sustained. This is a higher standard and more difficult to meet than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used by the state Ethics Commission, which investigates ethics complaints against state officials and employees.

According to Commission Executive Director Dan Mollway, the higher standard in effect protects lawyers from most formal discipline.

Court officials emphasize that no tax dollars are spent on the disciplinary counsel. The office's $800,000 annual budget comes from part of the licensing fees that attorneys are required to pay.

"Disciplinary bodies for attorneys are already suspect around the country because of questions about whether they are really effective," Byrne said. "The Judiciary should be doing everything it can to enhance confidence in this process."