ILNews

Governor: 1-year cooling off period applies to ALJs

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The governor today fired the state's top utility regulator, citing ethical concerns about how a former Administrative Law Judge presided over cases involving a regulated energy company leading up to his taking a job there.

But even more significant for the Indiana legal community is how Gov. Mitch Daniels’ actions are telling ALJs that the spirit of a mandatory one-year cooling-off rule applies to them, and they should be careful about considering outside employment while presiding as neutral parties over these administrative matters.

Terminating David Lott Hardy as Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission chairman, the governor specifically pointed to the reason being the recent departure of general counsel Scott Storms who took a job in late September as a lawyer in Duke Energy’s regulatory division.

The attorney admitted to the practice of law in 1989 was the agency’s chief legal advisor and served as ALJ, and the governor said his taking a job somewhere directly involved in cases he’d recently presided over raised the “appearance of impropriety.”

The governor’s general counsel David Pippen sent a memo to all agency heads outlining an internal review that found Storms had been communicating with Duke about a job even while he was presiding over administrative hearings concerning the energy company.

"Additionally, the agency head was aware of the communications and did not remove the lawyer from matters for which the lawyer was now conflicted,” Pippen said in his memo, saying that Daniels has directed that administrative opinions over which Storms presided be reopened and reviewed “to ensure no undue influence was exerted in the decisions.”

In the memo, Pippen wrote that the governor considers the one-year cooling off period to apply to anyone at the ALJ level, and that this matter specifically has been referred to the Inspector General to determine if any laws were broken or whether misinformation was presented to the state Ethics Commission.

Though it’s not outlined which Duke cases are at issue, Storms had presided over a handful of matters involving Duke – most significantly one relating to cost overruns at the company’s Edwardsport generating plant. After questions arose late last month about Storms’ departure and new position, Duke said that he and the company had previously sought an advisory opinion from the state ethics commission on whether Storms would be subject to that one-year cooling-off period before being allowed to take a job at Duke. The commission found it didn’t apply because Storms wasn’t directly involved in the decision-making, but the panel also found that he couldn’t be involved as an attorney at Duke in any matters he might have presided over while working as an ALJ for the state agency.

But with this announcement, the fallout worsened as Duke said it was placing Storms on administrative leave “pending the completion of a full evaluation.” The company did the same with its president and chief executive officer of Indiana operations, Mike Reed, who had started with Duke in June after serving as commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation and previously serving as executive director of the IURC under Daniels from 2006 to 2009.

Hearing about the IURC-specific issues, Indianapolis attorney and longtime legal ethics advisor John Conlon said this goes to a broader issue about how state agency attorneys also function as ALJs and he said it’s ironic in this case that “the appearance of impropriety” is being cited by the governor.

“I think that there is an inherent conflict when an attorney who works for a state department also functions as a supposedly neutral ALJ,” he said. “Unfortunately, these types of situations go on routinely throughout state government.”

Conlon said he wouldn’t be surprised if disciplinary charges are explored, but that it would be up to someone to file a complaint before the Disciplinary Commission for that to happen. No formal disciplinary actions are listed on the state’s appellate court docket for Storms, and the commission is prohibited from speaking about any issue that may or may not be pending.

As part of the announcement today, Pippen reiterated that no ALJ who presides over information-gathering or order-drafting matters should engage in communications with regulated industries regarding potential jobs without recusing him or herself from cases involving that industry.

Daniels immediately appointed as the new IURC chairman Jim Atterholt, who serves on the commission and is the state’s former insurance commissioner.

Indianapolis Business Journal reporter Chris O’Malley contributed to this story.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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

  2. 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!

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT