ILNews

Judge: No attorney discipline needed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis has decided disciplinary actions aren't needed against a handful of attorneys relating to their conduct in a clean air trial last year, though he hasn't changed his mind about setting aside the jury verdict and holding a new trial as a result of the behavior of in-house counsel.

U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana issued an order late Monday in U.S., et al. v. Cinergy Corp, et al., 1:99-CV-1693, which involved a nine-year-old case that culminated with a trial and jury verdict in May 2008. Jurors had found that Cinergy - bought by Duke Energy in 2006 - violated federal rules at its Wabash plant in Terre Haute, but cleared the company regarding modifications made at four other plants in Indiana and Ohio.

Following that verdict, attorneys discovered a previously undisclosed consulting agreement with a witness that raised questions about the company's central theme at trial and whether it was tainted by misleading testimony. In mid-December, Judge McKinney ordered that Cinergy's legal team, including in-house counsel and some local lawyers working for the company, show cause as to why they shouldn't be sanctioned and suspended from practicing before the court.

Local counsel is from Taft Stettinius & Hollister: current attorneys Scott Alexander, Robert Clark and John Papageorge, as well as Debra McVicker Lynch who's since been appointed as a federal magistrate for the Southern District. The in-house counsels were Julie E. Ezell, Dean Moesser, and trial counsel Kathryn Thompson.

A hearing originally set for this morning was vacated after the judge issued an 11-page order late Monday, finding that no discipline is warranted but upholding his previous decision for a new trial.

"Setting aside a verdict is a harsh penalty... A harsh penalty called for by what the Court considers the egregious nature of the attorney inaction," Judge McKinney wrote. "The publishing of this and prior orders is sufficient. Further proceedings would create time consuming litigation threatening to overtake the issues of the case and draw time and energy from the Court's and the attorneys' task of bringing this litigation to a close with little delay as possible."

In his order, Judge McKinney wrote that most of the counsel involved - including those local attorneys - weren't aware of the agreement between Cinergy and a witness, or didn't have a hand in the trial testimony aspect.

In a 38-page response for the Duke/Cinergy counsel, Barnes & Thornburg attorneys John Maley and Larry Mackey disputed the court's findings of misconduct and wrote that counsel hadn't mislead anyone in the case. The brief also includes references from several prominent Indianapolis-area attorneys who've reviewed the issues and determined they are legal, ethical, and reasonable.

Magistrate Lynch filed a separate response, denying any misconduct or knowledge of wrongdoing. She wrote that after her withdrawal from the case in October, she became "generally aware" that a motion for a new trial was based on an undisclosed matter, but she didn't find out about it in full until reading Judge McKinney's order in December.

She also pointed out that her involvement in the trial and the two months beforehand was limited, and that she wasn't involved in compiling or providing discovery responses, witness preparation, or trial strategy. Most of her tasks involved coordinating with the court and co-counsel regarding logistical arrangements for various proceedings, she wrote, and her total time spent on the litigation in May 2008 amounted to only about two-tenths of a billable hour.

The judge accepted those declarations from most of the counsel involved, and the attorneys now have no further responsibility to the court. However, he also ordered that Duke's legal team pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees, and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to submit a statement about those costs. A bench trial is set for Feb. 2.

Look for the Jan. 21-Feb. 3 issue of Indiana Lawyer for more coverage.

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