ILNews

U.S. judge sanctions Indianapolis law firm

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal judge has sanctioned an Indianapolis law firm that employed a few attorneys he says helped abuse the discovery process, failed to correct misleading or false statements made by its client, and didn't properly turn over to the court or opposing counsel key documents relating to an environmental contamination case out of Southern Indiana. In a 66-page order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana determined that Bose McKinney & Evans should be sanctioned for its attorneys' actions that "skated the edge of its responsibility," and for acting like "a chameleon" in becoming indistinguishable from its client and allowing that client to evade the truth. "The Court notes that it may be unusual to sanction a law firm for conduct that violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," the judge wrote. "However, in this case, where three partners of the firm had knowledge of its client's apparent disregard for those rules and failed to properly supervise an associate and paralegal who had knowledge of adverse facts that remained undisclosed to the opposing party, the Court can only conclude that the firm must be held accountable under its inherent authority to deter such conduct in the future." Specifically, the judge's order focuses on former Bose attorneys Richard VanRheenen and Amy Cueller, who firm leaders asked to leave late last year because of this case. A declaration submitted to the court by Bose Managing Partner Kendall Crook shows that VanRheenen voluntarily resigned his partnership effective Jan. 1, 2009, and remained on a limited contract attorney basis until Feb. 20 to transition his practice and clients to a new firm; Cueller declined to resign and was fired Jan. 6. Others mentioned include partner Kathleen Lucas, who remains at the firm; former associate Matthew Klein and former partner Jan Nelson, both of whom are no longer listed on the firm's Web site; and an unnamed paralegal who assisted on the case. In a statement issued to Indiana Lawyer today, Crook wrote, "This remains a pending matter and we intend to work diligently to seek an appropriate resolution. We have taken this matter extremely seriously and took prompt action to address the issues described in the Court order. The two principal litigators involved in this case are no longer associated with the firm." The case, 1100 West LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-CV-1670, involves a business's 7-acre site in the Evansville area that 1100 West claims was heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals from the nearby Red Spot property. After filing a state court suit in 2003 about the alleged contamination, 1100 West took the case to federal court in 2005 and sought injunctive relief under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 1100 West asked the judge to order the removal of all the chemicals near its property and for the company to stop discharging any of that hazardous and solid waste from its nearby property. A central issue in the case was whether particular chemicals were used at the site, and both sides debated during discovery whether those chemicals were ever stored or used at the Red Spot site. Former Red Spot president and board chairman, Charles Storms, and environmental manager Susan Henry, testified throughout the litigation that the company hadn't used or stored specific chemicals. But discovery withheld from the court and opposing counsel showed otherwise, Judge McKinney wrote, and he noted that the company continued pressing that claim up to October 2008 when those previously withheld documents were discovered. Lucas began as Red Spot's counsel in 2003 to enroll its property in the voluntary remediation program. Lucas later brought in VanRheenen as the primary litigator before Cueller joined the case, according to the order, and the others assisted throughout the years. In October 2008, attorneys for 1100 West filed a motion for sanctions and after a two-day hearing on May 6 and 7, 2009, the judge issued his decision late last week. He found the conduct goes back to at least the summer of 2006, and that both Henry and Storms had on several occasions misrepresented facts. As a result, Judge McKinney entered a default judgment against Red Spot and determined the company had forfeited the right to have these issues determined on the merits. "But, BME, through both Cueller and VanRhennen and, to a lesser extent, Lucas, had opportunities to steer Red Spot, particularly Henry and Storms, on a different path and it never did," the judge wrote. "If all BME had was one individual who wished to ignore a small amount of information, it would be one thing. In this case, however, the evidence that Red Spot had used (those chemicals) was too persuasive for BME to continue to ignore." Judge McKinney later wrote, "Being a zealous lawyer does not mean zealously believing your client in light of evidence to the contrary." The attorneys for 1100 West have until Aug. 4 to submit a proposed remedial plan for its property, and a show cause hearing is set for Nov. 4 to allow Red Spot to respond to the appropriateness of that plan. Judge McKinney also ordered that 1100 West is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs from all discovery dating back to May 23, 2006, and for the fees and costs associated with the sanctions' motions and hearings. A report is due by mid-July on those costs, and Judge McKinney has ordered that Red Spot and Bose McKinney shall each pay one-half of those determined costs.

Let us know what you think about the sanctions at our blog, First Impressions.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT