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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT