A Controversial Disbarment in Hawaii
Attorney Gary Dubin, age 83, was recently disbarred by the Hawaii Supreme Court. To some, it looked like a routine bar discipline matter. To others—including myself—it appears to be the product of investment bank influence and a flawed disciplinary process that fails to protect due process.
Dubin has practiced for decades without a blemish on his record. He has been a strong advocate for homeowners, especially in foreclosure cases, winning both at trial and on appeal. His record in appellate work surpasses my own. It is no surprise, then, that he became a threat to the status quo of illegal and fraudulent foreclosures being rubber-stamped as legitimate.
Problems With the Discipline System
In my experience representing licensed professionals, the attorney discipline process suffers from two major flaws:
-
Lack of Due Process
-
Proceedings don’t follow the usual standards of civil or criminal procedure.
-
Presumptions are unequally applied, stacking the deck against the accused.
-
-
Administrative Laziness and Political Motivation
-
Prosecuting attorneys often rely on weak allegations and lack trial skills.
-
In politically motivated cases, however, the system is mobilized to “take out” effective professionals.
-
In Dubin’s case, the grievance committee’s complaint was adopted verbatim by the Supreme Court, with little resemblance to the actual facts.
-
The result? A process that punishes outliers who challenge entrenched power—while pretending to “protect the public.”
Why Dubin’s Case Matters
Dubin’s disbarment was, in my opinion, a steamroll by hidden political forces. The final orders read like rubber stamps, not the outcome of fair litigation.
And yet Dubin is not retreating. He has filed a new lawsuit, alleging violations of due process, equal protection, and free speech under the U.S. Constitution. His arguments raise fundamental challenges to the way bar discipline is handled in Hawaii—and possibly nationwide.
Key Allegations in Dubin’s Complaint
Dubin’s filing makes three central claims:
-
No Constitutional Authority
-
Neither the Hawaii Constitution nor its legislature gave the Hawaii Supreme Court power to license or discipline attorneys for conduct outside of courtrooms.
-
-
Equal Protection Violations
-
Even if such power existed, it is exercised in ways that treat lawyers differently from other professions—especially regarding evidence and appeals.
-
-
Due Process and Free Speech Violations
-
The court’s disciplinary process tramples due process rights and, in Dubin’s case, suppresses free speech.
-
A Fight Worth Watching
If Dubin prevails, his case could upend the attorney discipline process and set a precedent for reform. For decades, discipline has often been wielded not as a neutral safeguard for the public, but as a weapon against lawyers who pose a threat to entrenched financial or political interests.
I believe Dubin’s complaint is meritorious and has the potential to reshape the balance of power between bar associations, courts, and attorneys. His willingness to fight at this stage of his career is both admirable and necessary.
Final Thoughts
Gary Dubin has been a consistent advocate for homeowners and a pioneer in foreclosure defense. His disbarment raises troubling questions about the fairness of attorney discipline systems.
I applaud his effort to challenge the process, and I encourage all interested parties—especially lawyers, activists, and homeowners—to follow his case closely. The outcome could redefine how attorney discipline is carried out across the United States.
⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for educational discussion only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with qualified counsel regarding legal matters.
Need Help With Your Case?
Call us today at 844.583.5339
Submit your case statement online for a complimentary recommendation.
Visit LivingLies.me for resources and case insights.


