Attorneys Openly Revolt Against General Counsel Over Failure To Punish PG&E For Pipeline Explosion

from the ethics-vs.-loyalty dept

Cross-posted from

A deadly explosion killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno, California on September 9, 2010. The cause of the destruction was a natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric that ran underneath the homes.

The subsequent investigation turned up a litany of failings on PG&E’s part that contributed to the explosion. PG&E’s regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, issued a recommendation that PG&E pay no fine, noting that the money the company was spending to modernize its pipelines to prevent future accidents was punishment enough.

This is when a number of CPUC attorneys took a stand against their boss, and their boss clumsily aired the office turmoil in public. And, yes, this all eventually involves the Taliban and a gun-toting enforcer...

A number of attorneys for CPUC refused to agree to this recommendation and suddenly disappeared from the case. As Jaxon Van Derbeken of the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The commission’s head of safety, Jack Hagan, and its general counsel, Frank Lindh, said last week that four members of the attorney team had asked to be reassigned, just days before the agency was to file its case for penalties against PG&E for the 2010 disaster that killed eight people.

If you’re still reading, it should come as no surprise that the “reassigned” lawyers disagreed with this interpretation. From the Chronicle again:

On Friday, Morris sent an e-mail to Lindh asking that he “cease immediately your defamatory representations that I and the other attorneys in the San Bruno (matter) voluntarily left the case.”

The Chronicle obtained a copy of the e-mail from a third party. Morris has declined to comment on the dispute.

In his e-mail, Morris said his team did not spend more than two years on the case, drafting hundreds of pages of briefs, so it could walk away from the case at the last minute.

“How could you or anyone else even question our commitment to ensure that such a tragedy should never happen again?” Morris said. “Your statements about us omit any mention of the fact that we refused to sign a reply brief, that we felt was unethical. Because you did nothing to resolve our ethical concerns, one attorney asked to be taken off the case, and you then claimed that all of us asked to be reassigned.”

Morris, who has worked for the commission for 31 years, added, “Anyone who knows me would question your statement that we voluntarily left.”

That’s the classic bar admission ethics query: what do you do when your boss asks you to do something unethical? This isn’t to say that Lindh was acting unethically. This is just to say that the general counsel of PG&E’s regulator used to work for PG&E and — over the objections of his staff — pushed for giving PG&E a no-penalty sweetheart deal. That’s all we’re saying.

The suggestion that the proper penalty for lapses that killed eight people is “bring your pipeline up to snuff” is troubling. It would seem as though building pipelines that don’t spontaneously combust should be par for the course and then there should be something out there to incentivize PG&E to not wait for the next explosion to look into the infrastructure they use to carry highly explosive material underneath houses. But maybe that’s just me.

After taking the weekend to mull over the charge that he was defaming his staff and committing ethical violations, Frank Lindh decided the appropriate response was to publicly air all of this in a keynote address to the National Conference of Regulatory Attorneys. From The Recorder:

Frank Lindh, the CPUC’s embattled general counsel, surprised the crowd — and his own staff — with a speech about a “hypothetical” state utility regulator whose staff attorneys needed to learn a lesson about loyalty and good judgment.

On hand were regulators from around the country who watched as Lindh’s own staffers heckled him for what they saw as a veiled attack on his legal team. The tense scene offered a glimpse of the firestorm within the CPUC’s legal department as it deliberates the financial penalty against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for its role in the deadly 2010 San Bruno explosion.

Getting heckled by the staff for a petulant rant is not the recipe for a successful keynote. It is, however, the recipe for a speech I’d have loved to watch live. The speech is a comical read (transcript reproduced below), calling out the disloyalty of a hypothetical lawyer in his dealings with “Stella Artois.” I see what he did there.

This whole affair did not sit well with other CPUC’s lawyers:

“I feel compelled to say that your decision to give this speech, which was a thinly veiled critique of the actions of the San Bruno attorney team, demonstrated very poor judgment,” Assistant General Counsel Helen Mickiewicz wrote Monday afternoon in an email sent to Lindh and copied to many other CPUC attorneys. “What is NOT appropriate is for you to take your case public, arguing your position in the press, and then today, before a hundred attendees from all over the country at a regulatory conference.”

But maybe we should cut Lindh some slack. He’s had a rough decade or so. His son is John Walker Lindh, who you might remember as the “American Taliban.”

Is there any way this could get crazier? Insert allegations that Lindh had a gun-toting sidekick who threatened lawyers to get on board with the deal? Sure! The San Francisco Chronicle again:

The head of safety enforcement for the California Public Utilities Commission denied Tuesday that he had threatened state attorneys in a dispute over whether to fine Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for the San Bruno disaster and said he is entitled to carry a gun in the agency’s offices – though he said he hadn’t done so recently.

Jack Hagan acknowledged that the exchange with the attorneys had become heated. But he described himself simply as “an exasperated client” who was trying to get his attorneys to help him make a case that the money PG&E is spending to improve its natural-gas transmission system is sufficient penalty for the 2010 pipeline explosion that killed eight people.

Hagan also confirmed that he had packed a concealed gun in the commission’s San Francisco offices since becoming head of the safety division in 2012, but that he had stopped doing so several months ago after a staffer complained of feeling uncomfortable about it.

Several of the attorneys who had been working on the regulatory case against PG&E raised Hagan’s conduct as an issue in confidential e-mails to their boss, which The Chronicle obtained from a third party this week.

On Tuesday, several CPUC attorneys wrote a letter to Lindh that Above the Law has received from a third party (reproduced in full on the third page):

It also appears that you subscribe to the view, expressed by the Director of the Safety and Enforcement Division, that the client is the boss in Commission proceedings and the attorneys must simply obey, regardless of whether the actions involved are of questionable ethics and legality. We think that this view represents a lack of understanding of the Legal Division’s duty to the public, the Commission, and the State of California.

This brings us to the present. It sure sounds like a mess out there in California. But this whole affair highlights once again the dangers of a revolving door regulatory system. When an attorney who served as general counsel of a PG&E subsidiary becomes PG&E’s regulator, no one can be too surprised that the proper penalty for killing 8 people is, “carry on about your business.”



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), Jun 28th, 2013 @ 5:07pm

    /headdesk

    /EOF

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    JackOfShadows (profile), Jun 28th, 2013 @ 5:07pm

    Sufficient Penalty?

    Tough call. If they actually do levy the recommended fine you can bet that PG&E won't be the one actually paying it. Somehow whenever a public utility is fined, a rate increase surely follows. Approved by whom? Why the CPUC!

    We're already paying seriously excessive bills to Pacific Gouge & Extortion, thank you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2013 @ 5:46pm

    I know where he can find replacement council that will fit right in with his ethics and public relations strategies. Hey Prenda Law, since the whole porn copyright trolling business seems to be unravelling, there seems someone in California seems to be wanting your style of representation. Charles Carreon, if you are paying attention, they probably have a spot for you as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Frankz (profile), Jun 28th, 2013 @ 6:40pm

    recused

    Announced yesterday, Lindh has recused himself from the case, a formerly retired commission attorney will now lead the case, and the 4 attorneys that were removed will now be back on the case.
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/06/27/lead-cpuc-lawyer-recused-from-pge-san-bruno-explo sion-case/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    anonymouse, Jun 28th, 2013 @ 7:40pm

    Re: recused

    Damn corruption here corruption there corruption everywhere, is this really the US and not some third world country run by a dictator. I am shocked and ashamed for the country as a whole with the amount of corrupt business practices taking place every day and this is just one of the many that don't get the attention they deserve.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2013 @ 9:57pm

    Hmmmm, what is criminal negligence again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 29th, 2013 @ 2:20am

    Can we print this out and give it to the talking head who was trying to support that tar sands pipeline thing?

    He had been saying that peoples concerns over safety were unfounded because the companies would have to be insane to let it happen... except there is this one, the spill of oil in Michigan where they knew the pipe was failing for a long time, and well I'm sure there is a long list of corporations putting bottom line over safety, mostly because they can get away with just fixing their pipes as punishment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 29th, 2013 @ 6:07am

    Re:

    Clearly corporations will self regulate without error.

    Laissez faire capitalism is the only way for an economy to thrive.

    Regulation is not only not needed, but it stifles the creation of jobs.

    We could eliminate unemployment simply by removing the minimum wage.

    We need small government, small enough to fit in your vagina.

    You want proof? -- Business is BOOMING in Texas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Shon Gale, Jun 29th, 2013 @ 8:07am

    That's my home states politics as usual. Why do you think I moved? Wait until Issa gets a hold of you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Arkiel, Jun 29th, 2013 @ 11:00pm

    Perhaps the market would rationally self-regulate if any event resulting from programmatic negligence would result in a fine of 10% of a market-player's annual revenue...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2013 @ 5:31am

    "the money the company was spending to modernize its pipelines to prevent future accidents was punishment enough. "

    That's not "punishment". That's a company meeting its obligations and upgrading its infrastructure. And if they paid the full value of each home destroyed and lost a wrongful death lawsuit for each person killed, that would still not be "punishment", only paying what is owed.

    And he's recusing himself NOW? This explosion happened in 2010. How on earth does it take 3 years to even get to THIS point? It's not like this was some sort of secret thing they had to uncover. There was an explosion. People died. How is that not even to the point of deciding whether there should be a fine, by now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Jul 2nd, 2013 @ 9:12am

    Re: Re:

    I see what you did there. And it's fucking hilarious...if not so sad

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Jack, Sep 17th, 2013 @ 3:28pm

    If a family member has died accidentally, you should contact a wrongful death attorney right away. When a person dies from an accident, it has tragic effects upon their family. There will be immediate expenses, and future losses of many kinds. If the decedent was the wage earner, there would be lost income. If the spouse, there will be some expenses involved in obtaining help to do the duties the spouse would have normally done for the family. Our team can go through the evidence and help determine what claims to ask for in court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This