ILNews

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.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT