“M” is for Malpractice. Scott Goold claims Rush Moore LLP, the Firm, and attorneys, Jason M. Tani and Bryan M. Harada, engaged in malpractice, failed to properly represent their client, abandoned their client, and spoke slanderously, libelously and defamed their client before First Circuit Court Judge Dean E. Ochiai in 2021.
SEE: Complete Review of Rush Moore LLP, Jason M. Tani and Bryan M. Harada
Scott has long been a respectful friend and fan of Asians. Many are some of the Best & Brightest in Hawai’i and across the nation. Like every group, not all can be top of the class.
As a pro se “idiot,” Scott was unable to fight for his rights. After spending the past couple years studying law, Scott now offers a $5,000.00 Challenge to reargue the matter before a panel of AVVO legal reviewers. Scott Goold says, “Pick on someone your own size and let’s Have Fun! Do these privileged corporate attorneys have the courage?
Aloha AVVO
On October 3, 2025, I submitted two reviews for attorneys from Rush Moore LLP: Jason M. Tani, and Bryan M. Harada. Didn’t hear back from you, but see Tani’s is live. Have a FUN proposal for your group. I offer a $5,000 CHALLENGE to the Firm and attorneys to debate/litigate a previous matter before a panel of your select reviewers. Please see my proposal. I am posting this history and proposal online. Thank you!
The Firm and attorneys 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 supervisors and coworkers document Plaintiff Jeffrey Scott Goold was considered an exemplary IT employee, who had “the 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 the following Monday. Plaintiff retained the Firm and attorneys about six months later at rates from $100 to $400 per hour; Tani as primary representative at $350 per hour. Plaintiff selected the Firm and attorneys because he was an 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 attorneys with a 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, the 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.”
The Firm and attorneys did not allow Plaintiff to respond to, counter or rebut Defendants’ motion. FIRED. Uneducated in legal matters, Plaintiff responded to the Firm and attorneys 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. The Firm and attorneys 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 the Firm and attorneys. The Firm and attorneys abandoned their client without any discussion.
The Firm and attorneys admitted that “this falls squarely within our representation of you,” and they FAILED to represent Plaintiff.
Not only did the Firm and attorneys 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 Shana M. 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.
In addition, documentation included in Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions proved HECO failed to provide Plaintiff with required policy related to his legal and prescribed medication, as well as suggested HECO failed to provide Plaintiff’s Supervisor Lori Yafuso, Dear and Buco with the required policy.
A competent Firm and attorneys would likely have an easy time settling this legal dispute in favor of Plaintiff. Instead, Rush Moore LLP and attorneys FIRED their client and left his family devastated.
Plaintiff now was WITHOUT legal representation. A pro se “idiot” as he describes himself, in a wrongful termination claim against the Most Powerful corporation in the State of Hawai’i, a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions over his head, and after the Firm and attorneys had slandered, legally libeled and defamed his character before the circuit court judge.
SPECIFICALLY:
7. To date, Plaintiff has not provided the Firm with any right to sue letter or determination.
10. The Motion for Sanctions contained sworn statements and documentation that directly conflicted with allegations Plaintiff previously represented as fact to the Firm.
11. After reviewing the Motion for Sanctions, the Firm informed Plaintiff of its intention to seek to terminate its representation of Plaintiff and asked that Plaintiff obtain replacement counsel immediately. Plaintiff declined to do so. 15. At no time did the Firm indicate that the complaint was only a placeholder or temporary complaint for the claims being made.
17. The expectation was that Plaintiff would timely obtain a right to sue letter and/or other determination that would allow suit on a claim for discrimination.
18. This did not occur.
19. Most troubling is Plaintiff’s admissions made to defense counsel on April 10, 2021 [redacted for simplicity]
21. Withdrawal is proper … where Plaintiff insists upon taking action that the Firm has a fundamental disagreement with, as follows: 1) Plaintiff failed to obtain a right to sue letter or other determination from the HCRC, despite specific requests made by the Firm; 2) Plaintiff failed to provide the Firm with copies [of] written communications made to Defendant and/or Defendant’s counsel, despite specific request made by the Firm; 3) Plaintiff apparently has communicated with a multitude of opposing counsel, on numerous occasions, against the express instruction of the Firm, and has disclosed attorney-client privileged information on his own volition; and 4) Plaintiff appears to have provided incomplete and/or incorrect factual information to the Firm for incorporation into the Complaint.
22. Withdrawal is also proper … where the representation has been rendered unreasonably difficult by Plaintiff, as follows: Plaintiff appears to have admitted that he has been untruthful to his own counsel and is seeking to shift responsibility for any errors in his factual allegations to his own counsel.
Again, Plaintiff was a STELLAR and OUTSTANDING employee. Was wrongfully terminated, humiliated, career destroyed due to confusion over the employer-required drug screen, and now, the Firm and attorneys made these false, deception, half-truth, slanderous and legally libelous comments before the judge who would decide this case.
Plaintiff believes the Firm and attorneys DESTROYED any reasonable opportunity Plaintiff had of (1) obtaining replacement counsel, and (2) prevailing in this wrongful termination matter.
The adverse action by the Firm and attorneys ENSURED Plaintiff would not be able to secure replacement counsel, and thus, FORCED Plaintiff to proceed as a pro se “idiot.” Remember, as of April 7, 2021, at 8:02am, Plaintiff believed the Firm and attorneys no longer represented his interests. Plaintiff would either find replacement counsel or move forward as a pro se “idiot.” Plaintiff therefore cannot be held legally responsible for any errors after this point due to his “idiocy.”
Plaintiff Jeffrey Scott Goold did the best he could. When he began, he was in fact an admitted pro se “idiot.” Through rigorous study, Plaintiff learned a great deal about the law and this specific issue. Had Plaintiff been as experienced then as he is now, Plaintiff claims the outcome would be different. He’s not an expert, but believes he could prevail against such flimsy and sketchy legal malpractice on the part of the Firm and attorneys, as well as Motion for Sanctions served by Randall C. Whattoff.
As such, Plaintiff Jeffrey Scott Goold challenged the Firm and attorneys, October 8, 2023, to re-litigate their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel before AVVO. Plaintiff presents the challenge proposal (below) to AVVO at this time.
CHALLENGE NOTICE October 8, 2025
Aloha Messrs Mau, Tani and Harada:
Submitted my review and rating of Attorneys and the Firm to AVVO on 8.3.25. Not heard back. May not have passed their protocols. Likely they contacted you and would be easy for you to discredit my comments. Was able to locate Exhibit A attached to your Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. On 14 April 2021, I had ZERO experience before the Hawai’i First Circuit. Was in fact a total pro se “idiot.” Knew it. Nothing I could do.
Attorneys actually wrote, “11. After reviewing the Motions for Sanctions, the Firm informed Plaintiff of its intention to seek to terminate its representation of Plaintiff and asked that Plaintiff obtain replacement counsel immediately. Plaintiff declined to do so.”
Plaintiff did not DECLINE. You misrepresented Plaintiff. Plaintiff tried repeatedly. Do you understand the BURDEN you placed on Plaintiff? Complaint had been filed. Defendants responded with Rule 11 challenge. Plaintiff’s Attorneys FIRED their client IMMEDIATELY … believe in about 24 hours. NO DISCUSSION. Who wants to take such a case? Give me a break! DECLINE? Replacement counsel DECLINED me! Who wouldn’t? You made it impossible to obtain replacement counsel.
Attorneys added, “10. The Motion for Sanctions contained sworn statements and documentation that directly conflicted with the allegations Plaintiff previously represented as fact to the firm.” Buco noted statements where Plaintiff said “Upon information and believe …” Plaintiff’s opinion; not fact. Tran’s comments about Plaintiff are factual and Plaintiff’s comments factual and accurate. Dear’s sworn statement contradicted Plaintiff’s claims, and HECO’s response to HCRC impeached Dear. Plaintiff’s comments were factually accurate. The Firm and Attorneys failed to defend their client.
Can go on, but you get the point. I’m not longer a pro se “idiot.” Learned a lot. Not competent to prosecute a complaint before the First Circuit, but could today PREVAIL before Judge Dean Ochiai on your motion.
And, thus, to PROVE to AVVO what a deep hole the Firm and Attorneys created for Plaintiff, I CHALLENGE the Firm and Attorneys to re-do the hearing. I’ll put up 5,000.00. The Firm and Attorneys put up $5,000.00. We submit YOUR Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, including Exhibit A. I will provide Plaintiff’s response, as a more skilled and experienced Plaintiff pro se.
As it was IMPOSSIBLE to obtain replacement counsel, the Firm and Attorneys put our family in an IMPOSSIBLE situation. Plaintiff’s response at that time was “idiotic.”
So, go one-on-one against a Plaintiff half your size! Not a pro but easy to beat up on a pro se “idiot.” If Plaintiff prevails, the Firm and Attorneys pay the $5,000.00 and AVVO publishes my review. If the Firm and Attorneys prevail, you receive $5,000.00 and the review is denied.
Let me know end of business, Friday, October 10, 2025. I will present the framework of this CHALLENGE to AVVO tomorrow.
Remember you heard it here first. Please leave your comments below and be sure to FOLLOW ClearHeath Life Strategies. We provide News of the News You Wish You Knew.
Ko’olau of Kaua’i. I am the Defiant One
“I Believe We Can”
ClearHealthLife Strategies 