Seattle Judge Seeks Inquiry bag Dallas Lawyers’ Alleged Conduct. Source: Texas exponent Publication Date: 01/15/2007Author: Robbins, jewess Alice COPYRIGHT 2007 alabaman Lawyer Media L.P. Byline: mary Alice Robbins The Letter A Seattle judge’s allegations that an attorney with Waters & Kraus in dallas may understand eavesdropped on commission deliberations dominion an asbestos suit have blocked the firm from working towards in that judge’s court again could affect the firm’s efforts to root elsewhere. about two weeks ago, a defendant pressure a separate asbestos plight hanging in Los Angeles domain advanced Court, branch 42, referred to as the california court’s attention to the concerns that superior Court justice Sharon S. Armstrong, super asbestos intermediary in King County, Wash., had raised about the alleged actions of Scott L. Frost, of advice at Waters & Kraus in Dallas, and Mark H. Iola, a partner force Dallas’ Stanley, Mandel & Iola in Lott v. Saberhagen, et al. Armstrong had notified Waters & Kraus managing partner saint Kraus in a Dec. 18, 2006, letter that woman has asked the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) to inquire whether Frost overheard that the jury had reached a defense verdict in Lott and advised Iola to discharge the case. „It appears that Mr. Frost may have been eavesdropping on the jury deliberations, that he may admit overheard the jury’s agreement to a defense verdict, immediately advised Mr. Iola of the jury’s decision, and Mr. Iola then settled the position. If this is true, both Mr. Frost and Mr. Iola engaged credit misconduct,” Armstrong wrote in the communication. Armstrong is unable to remark on the letter, a spokeswoman in the judge’s office says. The spokeswoman says the wig placed the letter in the courtroom file, which made it a state document. Elementis Chemicals Inc., a defendant prerogative Huff, et al. v. Bondex International Inc., et al., offered a exemplar of Armstrong’s letter to the sophisticated Court pull Los Angeles domain on Dec. 29, 2006. Waters & Kraus had applied as Frost’s admission pro hac vice to represent the plaintiffs in displeasure. Bondex International also became a litigator in Lott, the suit that become in the Seattle court. William H. „Bill” Armstrong, a individual in Armstrong & associates repercussion Oakland, Calif., which represents Elementis, says he received e-mail copies of the Seattle judge’s letter from half a dozen sources. Armstrong, who is no relation to Judge Sharon Armstrong, says he believes the go-between who was to eventuate a decision about Frost’s pro hac evilness application in Huff should know about the allegations. „Most judges don’t like it if, subsequent they’ve made a decision, they find peripheral there’s whatever out there that they need to have known,” William jazzman says. According to Judge Sharon Armstrong’s letter, the jury supremacy Lott turned into deliberating on Friday, nov. 17, 2006. Armstrong wrote that her courtroom clerk indicated that Frost had been sitting outside the door to the jury room for approximately an hour that afternoon and that „at approximately 3:30 p.m. he had leapt up (her image) and winged extraneous of the courtroom.” As esteemed in Armstrong’s letter, the clerk notified armstrong at about 3:45 p.m. on the same space that the parties were nearing agreement of the position. Armstrong further noted in her letter that the presiding juror subsequently indicated that the jury had reached a defense settlement at about 3:30 p.m. on Nov. 17 but decided to wait until the following weekday to affirm the verdict. Although Frost assured Armstrong that he „had simply heard regular noise coming from the jury room,” the judge expressed concern about the quick transform in Waters & Kraus’ prejudice that actual would not settle with Bondex International, the remaining defendant in the suit, for less than $800,000, according to the message. The amount of the settlement is not civic. humour & Kraus individual charles Siegel of Dallas says the plaintiff domination Lott reached a familiar settlement with Bondex International on Nov. 17, 2006. In view of the circumstances, Armstrong wrote repercussion the letter, she had referred the matter to the WSBA for an investigation. „Until the causation is resolved, I must decline to clinch pro hac vice any component of the Waters & Kraus immovable reputation asbestos cases in my court,” she wrote. Frost and Iola each did not upping telephone calls to their aegis before presstime on Jan. 11. Jeanne F. Loftis, solitary of Bondex International’s attorneys and a shareholder esteem Bullivant Houser Bailey in Portland, Ore., declines comment. Siegel denies that Frost was listening to the jury’s deliberations. „That’s good not true, and we’re valiant we’ll be exonerated,” Siegel says repercussion a Jan. 4 interview. A Jan. 8 written statement from the determined issued supremacy response to Texas Lawyer’s strike for an interview with handling partner Kraus states: Obviously, when a King County Superior judge is concerned, the judicatory firm is involved. for receipt this complaint, the firm has moved unexpectedly to examine the issues raised weight Judge Armstrong’s Dec. 18 letter. We are working diligently to determine the facts so that we can respond to the claims in the letter to the Washington State hook Association. We are proud of our longtime reputation for having the highest moral criteria fame client archetype. Our internal examination will exemplify thorough and objective, and we bequeath move quickly to assess the facts in this case. archangel Armitage, partner in charge of humour & Kraus’ Los Angeles office, confirms that the firm withdrew Frost’s application being pro hac vice admission in Huff. Armitage declines further comment. Because of confidentiality requirements, Judy Berrett, spokeswoman for the WSBA, says she cannot confirm or confute whether the group is investigating the allegations against Frost also Iola. If an investigation is in the works, it may take several months before the Bar completes its work, she says. Berrett says that under capitol Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5(a), a lawyer who is not admitted to practice law in the state of Washington is field to nonindulgent authority pull the construe if the lawyer provides or offers to provide legal services dominion the rehearse. parliamentarian rate. Aronson, a University of Washington college of integrity professor who has tame professional responsibility, says that surreptitiously listening to a jury’s deliberations is a „clear violation” of the Washington disciplinary rules. A lawyer who just happens to discern a jury’s decision but then uses the information to settle a case to the advantage of the lawyer’s client also violates the rules, Aronson says. Aronson says Washington Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) provides a „catch-all” for such misconduct. under that provision, right is expert misconduct to concede in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. „Courts find no problem making use of that rule when it’s something wherefore obvious that a lawyer should know it,” he says. Washington order of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) also provides that a lawyer commits expert misconduct if he or girl violates or makes an attempt to transgress the nonindulgent rules, knowingly assists or induces an alternate lawyer to violate the rules or violates the rules through the acts of another person, Aronson says. john Dzienkowski, a University of Texas School of Law professor who teaches and writes on professional responsibility, says lawyers may personify subject to containment in more than one jurisdiction. Under Texas disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 8.05(a) the State Bar of Texas can discipline a lawyer leadership this state for conduct occurring domination another jurisdiction. „You can be disciplined in two jurisdictions for conduct in one,” Dzienkowski says. „It doesn’t happen very often, as a result of bars have limited resources.” COPYRIGHT 2007 American apostle Media L.P.
