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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT