ILNews

Sanctioned firm settles on legal fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis law firm sanctioned for the conduct of some of its attorneys in an environmental cleanup case won't appeal the sanction and has agreed to pick up some of the opposing counsel's legal tab as part of a settlement agreement.

With a settlement reached late Friday, Bose McKinney & Evans has agreed to pay an unspecified amount of legal fees as a result of the June 5 order from U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney, who determined the firm should be sanctioned for essentially helping its client abuse the discovery process, failing to correct misleading or false statements made by the client, and not properly turning over to the court or opposing counsel key documents relating to the case.

Notice of a settlement was filed with the court on Friday, saying the parties, "resolved the issues between them, including the relief the Court granted to 1100 West as against BME."

In a statement from managing partner Kendall C. Crook, he says the firm is pleased with being able to resolve its differences in a "mutually satisfactory manner," but doesn't delve into specifics of the agreement reached in 1100 West LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., 1:05-CV-1670.

The case involves a business's 7-acre site in the Evansville area that it claims was heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals from the nearby Red Spot property. The plaintiff asked the judge to order the removal of all the chemicals near its property and for the company to stop discharging hazardous and solid waste from its nearby property, and a central issue in the case was whether particular chemicals were used at the site. Red Spot denied that they were stored or used there, but Judge McKinney determined otherwise based on discovery initially withheld from the court and opposing counsel.

Specifically, the judge's order focused 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 by 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.

Aside from the firm sanctions, 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.

In his 66-page order, Judge McKinney wrote that 1100 West was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs from all discovery dating back to May 23, 2006, and for all the costs associated with the sanctions' motions and hearings. Bose was ordered to pay half those costs, splitting the tab with Red Spot.

While details of the settlement are confidential, the costs are expected to run into the millions. Firm spokesman Roger Harvey, senior vice president of Bose Public Affairs Group, declined to discuss details but said this settlement resolves all issues so there will be no appeal by the firm.

"We won't let this define us," he said. "The true test of an organization is its ability to recover from an unfortunate situation like this, and we're certainly committed to doing that."

Court documents show that Red Spot has argued that Bose McKinney & Evans collected almost $3 million in legal fees on this case and that the firm threw its former client "under the bus" in an effort to distract the court from its own misconduct, while the firm says that Red Spot's continued evasion of the truth shows that the client was the problem, not the attorneys.

Lead counsel for 1100 West, Tom Barnard with Taft Stettinius & Hollister, said that this settlement doesn't end the case against Red Spot, which has new counsel after Bose McKinney & Evans stepped down from that role earlier this year. The company is now represented by attorneys at Indianapolis-based Ice Miller and two out-of-state firms, Michigan's Butzel Long and Chicago's Foley & Lardner.

Barnard says that Judge McKinney's order allows 1100 West to move forward with a remediation plan and determine what the cost will be for cleanup. That proposed plan is due Aug. 4, and a show cause hearing is set for Nov. 4.

He declined to discuss specifics of the settlement or comment on sanctions against the entire firm - something that plaintiffs did not request from the judge in this case. But he said he hopes the default judgment and fees sanction against Red Spot will move the case along.

"This has been a remarkably frustrating process for me as a trial lawyer, and it was unfortunate for us to have to seek sanctions," he said. "But sometimes those are the only mechanisms left to obtain justice."

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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT