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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.