Lawyers get firm in trouble

June 10, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Do you remember back in school when a couple students in class would act up and the teacher would punish the entire class to make a point that type of behavior isn’t allowed? That’s pretty much what happened Friday to Bose McKinney & Evans when U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney sanctioned the firm for the actions of a few of its attorneys and staff.

The sanctions stemmed from discovery issues in a drawn-out lawsuit in which Bose represented a company in Evansville that denied using certain chemicals on site. Turns out, the attorneys on the case did learn through evidence and deposition testimony the chemicals were used, but instead of encouraging their client to come clean, they just pressed ahead like they didn’t know the chemicals were used. Read more about the sanctions here.

Judge McKinney described the attorneys as “chameleons” who helped their client to evade the truth.

Sanctioning an entire firm for conduct violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is unusual, he noted in the order, but necessary because the firm should be held accountable because three partners had knowledge of its client’s “apparent disregard” for discovery rules, and the firm failed to properly supervise an associate and paralegal who had knowledge of adverse facts. The two principal litigators in the case are no longer with the firm, according to a statement from Bose.

The 66-page order is a humdinger filled with discovery violations and examples of attorneys not following the rules and basically turning a blind eye or passing the buck on responsibility.

What do you think about the sanctions? Is it surprising or appropriate given the conduct of the client and attorneys?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Someone once told me that
  • I commend the judge for sanctioning these attorneys. This is so shameful. I\'d fire these attorneys.
  • This story is a perfect example of what can happen when an attorney fails to realize that his first duty is to uphold the law. Attorneys can become too zealous in representing clients, and the result is often a blurring of the line between attorneys and clients.

    As to the judge calling an entire firm into question over the actions of a few attorneys, often the type of activity engaged in by these attorneys can only happen where the senior members of the firm or legal office have lost sight of the proper role for attorneys within the office.
  • So are you saying that the firm has no responsibility for the actions of its partners, who were in court as members of that firm? Interesting suggestion. I\'ll bet the managing partner was quite pleased at the fees the FIRM was earning on this litigation.
  • Do you remember back in school when a couple students in class would act up and the teacher would punish the entire class to make a point that type of behavior isn’t allowed? -- This is not an apt comparison. Did four of the students have a solemn agreement to act together, one for all and all for one? (In grade school, this would have been a gang, not a firm.) Did the teacher then punish the whole gang when one acted up?

    The industrialization of the practice of law and corresponding dominance of mega-firms has allowed the theoretical basis for collective practice to become obscured. Shared responsibility for the representation of a client must be truly and wholly shared, for all purposes, or it is a sham creating both pitfalls for the unwary and cover for the unscrupulous.
  • Well stated Brian Stanley.
  • ...and the teacher would punish the entire class. Curious that you would lead with a manifestly false analogy. The teacher has engaged in collective punishment, something understood in the adult world as unlawful if not a war crime (except when perpetrated by the US government and Israel -- but I digress). A law firm is a partnership, in which the partners act as agents for each other, agree in advance to be legally responsible for each other\'s actions, and share profits and losses. Holding such an entity liable as opposed to individual partners may raise some policy issues, but they have nothing to do with collective punishment.

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
  1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT