Bryan Masashi Harada

Reviews for Rush Moore LLP attorney Bryan M. Harada. Firm and attorney devastated our family, in regard to a claim of wrongful termination by Hawaiian Electric Co. on March 25, 2019. On March 22, 2019, written evaluations by supervisor documents Plaintiff was considered exemplary IT employee, who had... " greatest influence in our success” and "it is your personality and humble nature that makes all of us so comfortable working together.” HECO fired Plaintiff following Monday. Plaintiff retained Firm and attorney about six months. Plaintiff selected the Firm and attorney because he was IT professional with no experience before Hawaii’s First Circuit Court. On April 6, 2021, Randall C. Whattoff, attorney for Defendants HECO, Hawaiian Electric Industries and Shana M. Buco, served the Firm and attorney with Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff related to the Firm and attorneys’ complaint filed February 25, 2021. On April 7, 2021, at 8:02am, Firm and attorney Bryan M. Harada “FIRED” Plaintiff by email, and instructed Plaintiff to "take immediate steps to retain new counsel and we will provide them with your files.” Firm and attorneys did not allow Plaintiff to respond to, counter or rebut Defendants’ motion. FIRED. Uneducated in legal matters, Plaintiff responded to Firm and attorney on April 6th, "Nice to hear from you. From our perspective, we consider this threat to be another small victory. Their response indicates the fear they harbor about my successful political actions and activities.” "Thank you for notifying me of the attached letter and draft motion by Mr. Whattoff. This is my responsibility, not yours. As we discussed due to the complexity of this matter, I am working pro se before the Commission [HCRC]. I will handle this pro se or contract legal representation as needed. I ask you to remain focused on our case at hand. Please be patient.” Plaintiff demonstrated absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of the legal matter. Firm and attorney responded, "The proposed Motion for Rule 11 sanctions is something threatened to be filed in 1CCV-21-0000216, JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD v HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY after the specified time (21 days) has expired. It has nothing to do with the HCRC or EEOC complaints. This falls squarely within our representation of you, and your inability to recognize this is one of the reasons we will be seeking to withdraw as your counsel.” Of course Plaintiff was unable to recognize the significance. For this reason, Plaintiff had contracted with Firm and attorney. Firm and attorney abandoned their client without any discussion. Firm and attorney admitted that “this falls squarely within our representation of you,” and they FAILED to represent Plaintiff. Not only did Firm and attorney FAIL to defend, protect and represent Plaintiff, they slandered, legally libeled and defamed Plaintiff before the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Honorable Judge Dean E. Ochiai, in exhibit prepared on April 14, 2021. Plaintiff was a stellar employee at HECO with an excellent reputation and successful career. Defendants produced key one witness, Elizabeth Dear. Plaintiff claims Dear assured him he "would be fine” submitting to HECO’s drug screen. Dear claims she did not. HECO’s investigation and response to HCRC impeached Dear’s claim. HECO’s investigation and response to HCRC regarding Defendant Buco revealed Defendants misled Plaintiff about HECO’s drug screen. Dear promised Plaintiff someone would get back to him if there were issues with his disclosed legal and prescribed medication. She lied to Plaintiff, as there were issues and nobody got back to him. Buco was aware of Plaintiff’s confusion, but “decided” to allow Plaintiff to submit to the drug screen under false pretenses. Firm and attorney abandoned client.