Lahaina Survivors Living in California: How Representation Works Across States

A meaningful share of the people affected by the August 2023 Lahaina fire never lived in Maui full-time. Some owned second homes there. Some owned businesses, rental properties, or undeveloped parcels. Some had family members who lived on Maui and lost their lives in the fire. Of that group, many live in California.

For California residents in any of those categories, the legal question is essentially the same: the case is in Hawaii state court, but the client is in California. How does representation work?

This post is a short walkthrough of the practical mechanics, written for clients rather than lawyers.

Hawaii is the proper forum

The Lahaina wildfire claims arise out of a fire that occurred in Hawaii, against defendants located in or doing business in Hawaii, on facts that took place in Hawaii. Hawaii is the proper forum for the litigation, and the cases have been consolidated in Hawaii state court for pretrial purposes. A California resident with a Maui-connected claim does not file in California; the case belongs in Hawaii.

That has two practical implications:

1. Counsel must be admitted in Hawaii, or admitted on a pro-hac-vice basis with a Hawaii-licensed sponsoring attorney
2. Some procedural rules and substantive law follow Hawaii practice, not California practice — for example, statute-of-limitations rules, evidentiary rules, and damages frameworks may differ from what a California client expects

How a California-based firm participates

For California residents who hire a California-based firm, representation in the Hawaii proceeding generally works through one of two structures:

• Pro-hac-vice appearance — the California-licensed attorney is admitted on a case-by-case basis to appear in Hawaii state court, with a Hawaii-admitted attorney serving as co-counsel of record under the Hawaii rules. The California attorney can take depositions, participate in motion practice, and otherwise serve as the client's day-to-day counsel.
• Co-counsel referral — the California firm partners with a Hawaii firm under a written referral arrangement disclosed to the client. The California firm continues to serve as the primary contact and advisor; the Hawaii firm handles the in-court work and acts as counsel of record.

In either structure, the engagement letter signed by the client identifies who is representing them, what each firm will do, and how fees are shared. The client knows from the start that representation involves attorneys in two states.

What that looks like for a California client

For a California resident with a Lahaina claim, the day-to-day experience is usually:

• Intake and consultation in California — by phone, video, or in person at the firm's office in San Diego
• Engagement letter that identifies the Hawaii co-counsel and sets out the fee structure
• Document gathering — most of which the client does in California, including pulling property and tax records, insurance policies, and personal documentation
• Deposition or testimony, where required, can sometimes be taken remotely from California; in some cases the client travels to Maui or to a court-approved alternative location
• Settlement discussions with the client conducted by the California attorney, with the Hawaii attorney providing the procedural and forum-specific advice

The goal, from the client's perspective, is that they have a single primary point of contact who understands their situation and coordinates the work, while the case proceeds correctly under Hawaii law and procedure.

Why this matters for fee structure

Mass-tort wildfire matters are typically handled on a contingency-fee basis. Where two firms are involved across states, the contingency fee is typically the same total percentage as if a single firm represented the client; the fee is then divided between the firms under the engagement letter. The client does not pay more for two-firm representation than they would for single-firm representation.

The engagement letter spells out the division. Hawaii has its own ethical rules about fee-sharing among lawyers in different firms, including disclosure to the client and consent. A clean engagement letter that explains the structure up front avoids issues later.

When a referral is the right answer

If a California resident's Maui-connected claim is straightforward and a Hawaii firm with a strong existing position in the coordinated proceeding can handle the matter directly, the firm may refer the matter outright rather than co-counsel. Referrals are appropriate when the value to the client of two-firm representation does not exceed the additional coordination cost.

Whether direct representation, co-counsel, or referral is the right structure depends on the specific facts of the claim, the client's relationship preferences, and the procedural posture of the case at the time of intake.

What to do if you are in this situation

If you are a California resident affected by the Lahaina fire and have not yet talked to counsel — or you talked to counsel early in the proceeding and want a second look — a no-cost initial consultation can clarify where you stand. The firm can review your situation, identify the appropriate representation structure, and connect you with Hawaii co-counsel where that makes sense.

Please reach out if that would be useful.

This article is general information and not legal advice. Cross-state representation involves the rules of multiple jurisdictions; specific situations need specific review with current authority and counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction.