Comments on Advance Indiana™: AP's Ken Kusmer Talks About Barnes & Thornburg Conflict In Representing State In Lawsuit Against IBM

HFFT, Did you make a contribution to the Mayor...

2010-10-21T20:47:15.291-05:00

HFFT,

Did you make a contribution to the Mayor's campaign? Did you hire the right law firm?

I think the answer is "no" to both those questions.

Why then do you expect your project to be supported by the City? Surely you know how things work around here by now.

Our God Lot project to bring urban farming to the ...

2010-10-21T08:58:50.410-05:00

Our God Lot project to bring urban farming to the near east side has been stuck in city legal since July.

This is a project that would cost the city nothing. All we are asking is that they give us a licensing agreement for one of the abandoned lots they want to used for inner city gardening.

We presented the proposal, they liked it, yet city legal has sat on it.

I can't help but think city legal could care less about Indy's poor and the urban farming initiative.

I'm quite fed up because summer is almost over and our window of opportunity to get a foothold with the God Lot project is closing.

I can see that citizen initiatives that cost the city nothing, yet would bring positive results in the inner city, are clearly the lowest of priorities.

Consider me FED UP!

Gary, and I have no doubt that the Sheriff illegal...

2010-10-20T20:47:17.440-05:00

Gary, and I have no doubt that the Sheriff illegally used commissary money to pay Kevin Murray's firm. Either that or the taxpayers.

I suspect, Paul, that Kevin Murray billed the taxp...

2010-10-20T20:21:49.084-05:00

I suspect, Paul, that Kevin Murray billed the taxpayers for the cost of preparing that complaint against you by Sheriff Anderson. We know Anderson didn't write the complaint. I totally agree with you, Don should have dismissed the complaint without making you waste the time responding to it.

A few years ago, Gary, I filed a complaint against...

2010-10-20T19:49:17.321-05:00

A few years ago, Gary, I filed a complaint against a B&T attorney. Lundberg immediately dismissed it even though the State Bar Association had issued an opinon saying that the conduct I complained of is unethical under our disciplinary rules. (I know an ISBA opinion is not binding.) Within a few months, the B&T attorney I complained about was appointed to the Commission. Yet last year Lundberg required me to answer a complaint filed against me by an elected official who complained that I had been suing him too much. It should have been dismissed outright for not stating a claim, yet I had to spend hours responding to it.

We attorneys have all been complaining for years about the Commission's approach to enforcement of the rules under Lundberg. Everyone was afraid to talk because of fear of being a target. I have confidence that the new leadership of the Commission will take a much better and more even handed approach to the enforcement of the rules.

Yeah, Paul, Don Lundberg applied those rules merci...

2010-10-20T19:07:15.079-05:00

Yeah, Paul, Don Lundberg applied those rules mercilessly against the little guys in the legal profession during his many years at the attorney disciplinary commission while turning a blind eye to almost anything attorneys at the big law firms did. Now Don sits in a cozy job over at Barnes & Thornburg.

I'm certainly not impressed with Brian Burdick...

2010-10-20T18:42:37.523-05:00

I'm certainly not impressed with Brian Burdick. Barnes & Thornburg gave bad advice to their former client, The Wilson Education Center, and helped to create a monumental mess that cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars. Here's a link with the details:

http://diana-vice.blogspot.com/search?q=brian+burdick

Once we learned of Burdick's association with the governor, we understood why we were continually stonewalled in our quest for accountability. The overpriced lawyers are B&T aren't worth their salt in my humble opinion.

Good work, Gary.

The AG spokesman said: "hiring this firm was...

2010-10-20T18:32:30.765-05:00

The AG spokesman said:

"hiring this firm was a specific request of the Governor's Office."

Oh, my gosh. Gary, this deal is a 1000 times worse than the IURC conflict of interest than Daniels jumped all over as being improper. B&T represents several of the subcontractors in the welfare privatization deal, including ACS. (My research too also showed B&T at one time represented IBM.) If IBM's attorneys have any brains, they'll start bringing in those subcontractors as co-defendants. Then B&T is on both sides of the litigation with clients pointing fingers at each other, and attorney's sitting there with intimate knowledge of what's going on.

It could well be that facts uncovered in litigation indicate that the State should also go after ACS. Now how do they do that with B&T representing ACS. What is B&T supposed to do if they start finding out stuff on behalf of FSSA which are damaging to ACS. Do they pursue it on behalf of FSSA or do they protect their client ACS and not pursue it?

In my 23 years of practicing law, I've never seen a more blatant, damaging conflict of interest. If anyone at my firm pulled this stunt, we'd be in jeaopardy of losing our licenses...and rightfully so.

B&T just assumes in the contract the conflict can be waived. They seem oblivous (or unconcerned that the rules will be enforced against them) that under Rule 1.7, there are nonconsentable conflicts, in particular those types of cases where the conflict involved strikes at the very integrity of the judicial process. Boy if thee was ever the case of that, this is it.