ILNews

Ethics commission fines, bans attorney from state employment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Ethics Commission has found a former general counsel and chief administrative law judge for the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission violated the law when he participated in decisions involving his future employer, Duke, while still with the IURC.

The ethics commission released its findings in a report Thursday, outlining the charges against Scott Storms. The inspector general charged Storms with violating Indiana Code Section 4-2-6-9(a) when he participated as an ALJ in the Duke Edwardsport case while knowing he had a financial interest in the case because he was negotiating employment with Duke at that time. He was also charged with violating the law when he participated as an ALJ in the Duke Smart Grid case after he learned he would become an attorney at Duke. Duke had a financial interest in both the Edwardsport and Smart Grid cases.

Storms ruled on the Duke cases in July 2010, and he began working at Duke in late September 2010. He was fired in early November 2010. His salary at Duke was $42,000 more than what he earned with the IURC.

The ethics commission found he violated I.C. Section 4-2-6-9(a) by participating in the matters and by not notifying his appointing authority of a potential conflict of interest or seeking an advisory opinion from the commission after he began negotiations for the open position at Duke. Storms also failed to file a written description detailing the nature and circumstances of the matter and make full disclosure of any related financial interest in the matter.

The ethics commission imposed a $12,120 fine, which was three times the amount of benefit Storms obtained from the $4,040 salary increase he received during his employment at Duke. He must pay the fine in full to the commission within 60 days. He is also banned from future employment with the state.

Duke’s Indiana president, Mike Reed, a former executive director of IURC, was fired at the same time as Storms as a result of this matter. Gov. Mitch Daniels fired IURC Chairman David Lott Hardy in October 2010 for not having Storms step down from Duke cases after learning Storms applied for a job with the company. Reed sent numerous emails and communicated with Storms and Hardy regarding Storms’ prospective employment.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT