ILNews

U.S. judge sanctions Indianapolis law firm

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal judge has sanctioned an Indianapolis law firm that employed a few attorneys he says helped abuse the discovery process, failed to correct misleading or false statements made by its client, and didn't properly turn over to the court or opposing counsel key documents relating to an environmental contamination case out of Southern Indiana. In a 66-page order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana determined that Bose McKinney & Evans should be sanctioned for its attorneys' actions that "skated the edge of its responsibility," and for acting like "a chameleon" in becoming indistinguishable from its client and allowing that client to evade the truth. "The Court notes that it may be unusual to sanction a law firm for conduct that violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," the judge wrote. "However, in this case, where three partners of the firm had knowledge of its client's apparent disregard for those rules and failed to properly supervise an associate and paralegal who had knowledge of adverse facts that remained undisclosed to the opposing party, the Court can only conclude that the firm must be held accountable under its inherent authority to deter such conduct in the future." Specifically, the judge's order focuses on former Bose attorneys Richard VanRheenen and Amy Cueller, who firm leaders asked to leave late last year because of this case. A declaration submitted to the court by Bose Managing Partner Kendall Crook shows that VanRheenen voluntarily resigned his partnership effective Jan. 1, 2009, and remained on a limited contract attorney basis until Feb. 20 to transition his practice and clients to a new firm; Cueller declined to resign and was fired Jan. 6. Others mentioned include partner Kathleen Lucas, who remains at the firm; former associate Matthew Klein and former partner Jan Nelson, both of whom are no longer listed on the firm's Web site; and an unnamed paralegal who assisted on the case. In a statement issued to Indiana Lawyer today, Crook wrote, "This remains a pending matter and we intend to work diligently to seek an appropriate resolution. We have taken this matter extremely seriously and took prompt action to address the issues described in the Court order. The two principal litigators involved in this case are no longer associated with the firm." The case, 1100 West LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-CV-1670, involves a business's 7-acre site in the Evansville area that 1100 West claims was heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals from the nearby Red Spot property. After filing a state court suit in 2003 about the alleged contamination, 1100 West took the case to federal court in 2005 and sought injunctive relief under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 1100 West asked the judge to order the removal of all the chemicals near its property and for the company to stop discharging any of that hazardous and solid waste from its nearby property. A central issue in the case was whether particular chemicals were used at the site, and both sides debated during discovery whether those chemicals were ever stored or used at the Red Spot site. Former Red Spot president and board chairman, Charles Storms, and environmental manager Susan Henry, testified throughout the litigation that the company hadn't used or stored specific chemicals. But discovery withheld from the court and opposing counsel showed otherwise, Judge McKinney wrote, and he noted that the company continued pressing that claim up to October 2008 when those previously withheld documents were discovered. Lucas began as Red Spot's counsel in 2003 to enroll its property in the voluntary remediation program. Lucas later brought in VanRheenen as the primary litigator before Cueller joined the case, according to the order, and the others assisted throughout the years. In October 2008, attorneys for 1100 West filed a motion for sanctions and after a two-day hearing on May 6 and 7, 2009, the judge issued his decision late last week. He found the conduct goes back to at least the summer of 2006, and that both Henry and Storms had on several occasions misrepresented facts. As a result, Judge McKinney entered a default judgment against Red Spot and determined the company had forfeited the right to have these issues determined on the merits. "But, BME, through both Cueller and VanRhennen and, to a lesser extent, Lucas, had opportunities to steer Red Spot, particularly Henry and Storms, on a different path and it never did," the judge wrote. "If all BME had was one individual who wished to ignore a small amount of information, it would be one thing. In this case, however, the evidence that Red Spot had used (those chemicals) was too persuasive for BME to continue to ignore." Judge McKinney later wrote, "Being a zealous lawyer does not mean zealously believing your client in light of evidence to the contrary." The attorneys for 1100 West have until Aug. 4 to submit a proposed remedial plan for its property, and a show cause hearing is set for Nov. 4 to allow Red Spot to respond to the appropriateness of that plan. Judge McKinney also ordered that 1100 West is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs from all discovery dating back to May 23, 2006, and for the fees and costs associated with the sanctions' motions and hearings. A report is due by mid-July on those costs, and Judge McKinney has ordered that Red Spot and Bose McKinney shall each pay one-half of those determined costs.

Let us know what you think about the sanctions at our blog, First Impressions.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT