ILNews

Magistrate denies any pre-bench wrongdoing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A newly appointed federal magistrate in Indianapolis denies any misconduct or knowledge of wrongdoing that a judge says happened during a clean air trial last spring prior to her taking the bench.

The misconduct is alleged to have happened when she was an attorney representing Duke Energy on claims it failed to meet environmental standards at some of its power plants. Magistrate Debra McVicker Lynch filed a declaration Friday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, defending her conduct as an attorney when she represented Duke Energy.

The two-page document comes in U.S., et al. v. Cinergy Corp, et al., 1:99, CV-1693, involving a nine-year-old case that culminated with a trial and jury verdict in May 2008. Jurors had found Cinergy - bought by Duke 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 themes at trial. Duke attorneys had presented arguments about the plaintiffs' "hired experts" versus the defense "engineer" witnesses, who had differing views on what kind of repair and modernization projects may have been happening at the power plants.

In a mid-December order, Judge McKinney found that Duke didn't disclose that it had a consulting agreement with witness Robert Batdorf, and had misrepresented his relationship with the company - whether he was a retired, unpaid former employee or a paid consultant.

The judge ordered a new trial for Duke because attorneys tainted the liability phase of the litigation. He is threatening to suspend counsel for Duke from practicing in the federal court, turning to a rarely used disciplinary power the court has. Local counsel is from Taft Stettinius & Hollister, which acquired Indianapolis firm Sommer Barnard last year. It's unclear whether any of the Taft attorneys in Indianapolis were involved in the representations made to the jury about the witness, but those counsel of record are Scott Alexander, Robert Clark, John Papageorge - and Lynch, who withdrew in October just before accepting her judicial post.

The company's principal counsel in the case is with the Washington, D.C., office of Sidley Austin. Indianapolis firm Barnes & Thornburg also recently entered an appearance in the case, representing Duke.

Judge McKinney demanded in December that all of Duke's counsel in this case as of May 5, 2008, show cause why they should not be suspended immediately from practice before the court and ordered to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees. He wants to know what each knew about the status of the consulting agreement Duke had with the witness, and when that information was known. The deadline was today.

In her response, Magistrate Lynch wrote she didn't have any knowledge of the consulting agreement between Cinergy and Batdorf described in Judge McKinney's order before or during the trial, or while she was counsel of record for the company. She wrote that she became "generally aware" that a motion for a new trial after her withdrawal was based on an undisclosed matter, but she didn't find out about it in full until reading Judge McKinney's order. She also pointed out that her involvement in the trial and the two months beforehand was limited to about two-tenths of a billable hour, not including compiling or providing discovery responses, witness preparation, or trial strategy. Most of her tasks involved coordinating with the court and co-counsel regarding logical arrangements for various proceedings, she wrote.

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct," her declaration ends, supplementing her request that the court fully discharge without any further action the show cause order as directed to her.

In a separate 38-page response filed Friday afternoon 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.

"Cinergy and its counsel respectfully request that this court find no misconduct occurred and take no disciplinary action against Cinergy or its counsel, allow its counsel to continue practice before this Court, and award no fees to Plaintiffs."

A 9 a.m. hearing is set for Tuesday in Judge McKinney's courtroom. Look for the Jan. 21-Feb. 3, 2009, 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. 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