Hawaii House Bill HB2219

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/26
• Refer: 1/30/26
• Report Pass: 2/20/26
• Refer: 2/20/26

Caption

RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

Summary

HB2219 amends Hawaii’s Ombudsman statute to clarify how privileged communications are handled when an agency shares information with the Ombudsman during an investigation. The bill provides that if an agency discloses a communication protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product privilege to the Ombudsman, that disclosure does not waive the privilege as to anyone else. It also prohibits the Ombudsman from further disclosing that privileged material to third parties. The measure is narrowly focused on the Ombudsman’s investigative authority and confidentiality obligations under section 96-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. It does not expand the Ombudsman’s power to obtain information, but it does codify a privilege-protection rule intended to preserve existing legal protections while allowing agencies to cooperate with investigations. The bill also includes a standard non-retroactivity clause and an effective date of July 1, 3000, which is a placeholder date commonly used in Hawaii bills to indicate a future effective date subject to amendment.

Impact

HB2219 would amend section 96-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding explicit statutory protection for attorney-client and attorney work-product materials shared with the Ombudsman. Under the bill, an agency’s disclosure of privileged communications to the Ombudsman would not constitute a waiver of privilege against other parties, and the Ombudsman would be barred from disclosing those communications further. The practical effect is to encourage agency cooperation with Ombudsman investigations while preserving litigation and advisory privileges.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests the bill was received favorably and moved forward without recorded opposition. It passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and was referred onward with no votes in opposition and no votes in reservation, indicating broad procedural support at that stage. The absence of committee transcript objections or recorded dissent suggests the measure was not controversial in the available record.

Contention

No major substantive opposition is reflected in the provided materials. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is the balance between transparency in Ombudsman investigations and the protection of confidential legal communications. Supporters would likely view the bill as a clarification that protects agencies from unintended privilege waiver, while any concern would center on whether the added confidentiality could limit the Ombudsman’s ability to fully explain findings or share information. However, no specific opposing arguments or named opponents appear in the record provided.