by Andrew Walden

Can Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees Chair Kai Kahele hold on to his razor-thin 5-4 majority while fighting in court over an allegedly illegal retaliatory power grab which began last year with the firing of OHA Board Counsel Richard Wurdeman, his replacement by Paul Alston and then the ouster of OHA CEO Stacy Ferreira?

The four minority Trustees supporting Ferreira have now obtained their own legal representation and separated themselves in court from the five majority Trustees supporting Kahele.

Trustees’ debate was forced out of Executive Session at the May 28, 2026 meeting of OHA Board of Trustees.  In the ensuing discussion, majority Trustee John Waihee IV explained:

“I have a lot of faith in in the advice of Paul Alston because he's the only lawyer that ever…actually won a a lawsuit…against the board, and he didn't settle. He outright won. So whatever advice you guys give me, I'm going to trust that it's going to it's going to win….” -- (BoT 49:00 mark)

But what if OHA’s BoT majority loses Paul Alston—and his entire law firm?

On August 6, 2026, Oahu First Circuit Court Judge Steven Nichols is set to hear Plaintiff Stacy Ferreira’s “Motion to Disqualify Denton’s LLP” from representing the OHA BOT majority in the lawsuit that has dogged Kahele since it was filed last year--1CCV-25-0001822 - Ferreira v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

This is the key excerpt from the “Motion to Disqualify Denton’s LLP”:

…B. Alston Must Be Disqualified Under HRPC Rule 3.7

HRPC Rule 3.7(a) provides that a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: “(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.” “[A]n advocate’s credibility as a witness should not, if it can be avoided, be injected into the proceedings.” …

If the Court does not disqualify Dentons, it should alternatively disqualify Alston from serving as trial counsel. Alston is a material witness to the allegations raised by Ferreira in her (First Amended Complaint, Docket #131, April 2, 2026) where he is referenced several times:

¶ 68 In July 2025, Ferreira received an email from Paul D. Alston (“Alston”), the Board’s new interim counsel, stating that the Board would investigate only whether Kahele created a toxic or hostile work environment, abused his authority, or whether his conduct was unbecoming of a trustee and chair.

¶ 70 Alston informed Ferreira that she would now directly report to Souza.

¶ 77 September 17, 2025, Ferreira received from Alston the Executive Summary of Findings regarding her report against Kahele, which was limited in scope. Alston informed her that the investigator did not consider her other allegations — including whether Kahele violated the State Ethics Code and breached his duties as fiduciary — because “the balance of the complaint did not involve HR-related issues.

¶ 80 Alston directed Ferreira to acknowledge that Kahele is her superior and that, as his subordinate, she is expected to follow his direction notwithstanding that her employment contract and OHA’s EPM state that she is responsible to the Board as a whole, rather than any individual trustee.

¶ 81 Alston’s decree to Ferreira strips other trustees of their authority to act collectively through her or to influence policy and decision-making at OHA because their administrator is bound in servitude to only the chair.

¶ 115 On October 16, 2025, Alston responded to Ferreira, stating that the Board declined her request for immediate reinstatement and falsely implied that Ferreira “elected” to take personal leave, ignoring that Souza required her to draft a memorandum announcing that she would be taking personal leave just after informing her of the Board’s decision to remove her as administrator.

Upon becoming interim counsel for the Board of Trustees, Alston participated in several executive sessions. Alston possesses information regarding conversations and evidence related to Ferreira’s statutory and common law claims. Ferreira intends to depose Alston and examine Alston’s testimony at trial to develop the factual record underlying the Defendants’ misconduct….

What a Coincidence!

The motion to disqualify Alston follows the pattern of Michale Miske’s lawyer Thomas Otake.  Otake, in February, 2023, was ordered removed as Miske’s counsel after Federal prosecutors discovered Otake had numerous conflicts of interest due to previously representing several Miske underlings who were set to be called as witnesses.

According to CSC records, Otake has been campaign chairman for OHA BoT vice-Chair Keoni Souza, a former stevedore, through three campaign seasons 2020, 2020, and now 2026.

Souza’s failed 2020 campaign was against OHA Trustee Keli’i Akina, whose son was part of the federal prosecutor’s legal team in the Miske case.

Ian Lind, February 10, 2023, describes Otake’s removal from the case:

In a court order signed Thursday afternoon, Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield ruled Otake’s prior representation of two other clients in criminal proceedings “related to” the charges pending against Miske creates a legal conflict of interest. Prosecutors say both prior clients will be called as witnesses in the trial of Miske and six remaining co-defendants, creating a conflict requiring Otake’s removal from the case.…

The government identified Otake’s two prior clients only as Client 1 and Client 2. 

…according to the government, “Mr. Otake and his co-counsel … should have been aware that Client 2 was substantially linked to Miske’s criminal activities.”

Client 2 was allegedly given one of five stevedore union positions that Miske reportedly purchased. He was favored, in part, “because Client 2 ‘does some of Miske’s dirty work,’” according to the supplementary memo.

Another government report, described in the supplementary memo, was turned over to defense counsel last year. It indicated Client 2 “committed criminal acts on Miske’s behalf, such as violent assaults.” Another separate report described Client 2 as “a fighter” who “collected debts for Miske.” Miske allegedly arranged for Client 2 to be placed in a union job “as a reward for (his) services.”

---30---

2025: Bishop Street Lawyer Behind OHA Power Grab?

2025: Lawsuit: OHA Budget Process Rooted in Illegal Power Grab

2024: Miske–with the active backing of Hong and longtime ILWU stevedore division director, Nate Lum–enlisted the support of then-Councilmember Trevor Ozawa....

2020: Miske Lawyer Behind Campaign to Unseat OHA Trustee Keli’i Akina