Jury should decide whether Duke Realty intended to get law partner fired

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Duke Realty, involved in a dispute over a land agreement with a Parr Richey Obremskey & Morton partner, intentionally induced the firm to terminate Carol Sparks Drake’s partnership agreement and whether that interference was justified, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

Drake owned land in Boone County next to the Anson Project development Duke Realty was constructing in 2003. She declined to sell her land, and the two later entered into a land-use agreement that limited how Duke Realty could develop the property near Drake’s land. During this time, Parr Richey suspended its representation of Duke Realty on the project until the land-use agreement was executed in 2004.

But a dispute over the agreement caused Duke Realty to inform the partners at Parr Richey that it was in the firm’s best interest to resolve the issue between Drake and the company. If Drake filed anything against Duke Realty regarding the land-use agreement, then whatever relationship Duke Realty had with the firm would be ended, Duke Realty told Parr Richey.

Shortly thereafter, the other partners agreed to remove Drake as a partner at the end of 2006. She sued Duke Realty for tortious interference with her partnership. The trial court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment.

At issue in Carol Sparks Drake v. Thomas A. Dickey, Craig Anderson, Charles E. Podell, and Duke Realty Corporation, 29A02-1302-CT-152, are the tortious interference elements of the defendant’s intentional inducement of breach of the contract and the absence of justification. The Court of Appeals found genuine issues of material fact regarding both these elements.

“The question remains whether, when Duke Realty demanded of Parr Richey that Drake cease and desist from enforcing her rights under the Land Use Agreement, Duke Realty intentionally induced Parr Richey to remove Drake as a partner without legal justification,” Judge Edward Najam wrote.

The judges also found it is not necessary for Duke Realty to have specifically intended only that Drake be terminated as a partner for the company to have tortiously interfered with the partnership agreement.

Duke Realty pointed to Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(a)(2) to say that even if it did interfere with the partnership agreement, it had a legitimate business reason to do so.

“But our Rules of Professional Conduct do not justify a client’s tortious behavior toward an attorney. While Duke Realty has an unfettered right to terminate its attorney-client relationship with Parr Richey, Duke Realty could have exercised that right without issuing a threat or ultimatum regarding Drake,” Najam wrote.

“Again, Duke Realty’s argument ignores the fact that it did not simply terminate its attorney-client relationship but, rather, used its status as a Parr Richey client as leverage in its dispute with Drake.”

A jury should decide Duke Realty’s intent and whether its threat to withdraw all of its business from Parr Richey was merely an expression of a client’s legitimate concern about a conflict of interest.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.