ML20113A836

Requests Public Apology from Util & Util Counsel for J Yenouskas 841120 & s to Selective Svc Sys Requesting Info on La Sinkin W/O Identifying Affiliation. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20113A836
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/09/1985
From:	Sinkin L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Newman J NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
References
CON-#285-471 OL, NUDOCS 8504100713
Download: ML20113A836 (7)

Text

AO ' oncktr NUmagR ,

7 '" "

" t ' es i- . . . .~ .s

/> [f6 OXMETED ruesday, April 9, 1985 , wiec Jack R. Newman ---

Newman & Holt:inger, P.C. 3@ ARtf0 AKh25 1515 L Street, N.W.. Suite 1000 Washinoton. 0.C. 20036 V 0FFICE OF SECRETAF:

WKMETING & SERvici;

Dear Mr. Newman:

3RANCP Attached to this letter are cooles of the correspondence between Mr. Joseph Yenouskas and the Selective Service System which I recently received. I am struck by the fact that Mr. Yenouskas' letter of November 20, 1984 1 s on p l ai3 " '*p aper .' ise. with no letterhead identifying Mr. Yenouskas as associated with your law frem. Notably. Mr. Yenouskas carefully omitted any mention of your law firm, or the client he was acting on behalf of, from the body of his letter. Mr. Yenouskas even used his home address aa a return address thereby disguising even further the crigin of the tnquiry.

Mr. Yenouskas' letter of Januarv 9, 1985 is also on plain paper.

But this time, Mr. Yenouskas is aided by a secretary - initials MB - who I assume works in your law office. As you know, correspondence from a law firm is virtually always on firm letterhead. I find it very significant, therefore. that Mr.

Yenouskas resorted to such abnormalities in order to disguise the true source of his inquiry. Moreover, as with the letter of November 20. 1984. Mr. Yenouskas carefully avoided mentioning in the body of the letter the fact he is employed by your law firm.

I also note that Mr. Yenouskas provided the Selective Service System with an address and date of birth for me. Obviously, he made inquiries,concerning me prior to his communication with the Eelective Service System.

So her e we have two letters apparently prepared in vcur law erfice -b. a paralagal in vour ?molov that 3re " laundered" to ecmove the 11rd between vcur law flem snd the 1 a.try Deing .tece.

Obviously, ycur firm did not in tact view this inquiry as a routine matter but rather as a less than ethical endeavor ahose criqin you preferred to keep hidcen.

I assume that since your offices are in the District of Columbia that /ou are a member of the District of Columbia Gar. I encourage you to review the Code of Professional Responsibility Dar Legal Ethtes Committee. If you do.

and Opinions of the D.C.

sou will find the followino:

An " obligation at lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct." Preamble and Preliminary Statement at 1.

90 c O 850410071{bh00 PDR AN PDR J

o

9 Jack R. Newman, Esquire P+ge Two April 9, 1985 The " Canons, Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Rules cannot . apply to non-lawyers; however, they do define the types of ethical conduct that the public has a right to expect not only of lawyers but also of their non-professional employees and associates in all matters pertaining' to professional employment. A lawyer should ultimately be responsible for the conduct of his employees and associates in the course of the professional representation of the client." Id.

Obviously, you are resconsible for the inquiry made concerning me trv Mr. Joseph Yenouskas and that inquiry is an obvious failure on your part to maintain the highest ethical standards.

Furthermore this conduct on the part of your law firm is in contradiction to the cuidance provided by the Ethical Considerations adopted in the D.C. jurisdiction.

"Every lawyer owes a solemn duty ... to strive to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety." EC 9-o.

When I first called you and asked who Mr. Joseph Yenouskas was, vou stated that he was a paralegal in your office. When I asked why he was investigating me, you stated that he was not investi g ating me. I then stated that I knew he was, at which point, you admitted that Mr. Yenouskas had made an inquiry to the Selective service System about me. You then spoke of your concerns about such investigations end stated that you had "tried to turn this kind of thing off."

I tele vcur statement, particularly in liaht of Mr. Yencuskas' delibe"3ts efforts to hide his affiliation with vou, as a clear admt=b;an that sou recconi:ad the impropriet> :nsolsed in such an inquir / but proceeded to conduct it anyway in a manner designed to conceal what you were doing.

"The duty of a lawyer to represent his client with :eal does not militate against his concurrent obligation to treat with consideration all perscns involved in the legal process and to avoid the infliction of needless harm." EC 7-10.

In your letter of February 1, 1985, you stress that only publicly available information was requested.

This does not axplain why this- inquiry was inade in the first place. Of what possible licensing proceedings 13 mv background of relevance to the licensing fifteen years ago? I represent the intervenor in the background proceeding before the NRC: I am not a witness whose you inight legitimately examine.

E 1

.. l 1

l I

1 1

I Jack R. Newman, Esquire Page Three April 9, 1985 What did you intend to do with the " publicly available information?" Were you just curious and spending your client's money on a lark to gather information you had no intention of using? Or were you in fact acting under instructions frcm Houston Lighting and Power to find something you could use to discredit me publicly? The attempt to hide the fact of Mr. Yenouskas' employment with you only confirms iny original conclusion that the purpose of this inquiry was to seek out information harmful to me personally or professionally.

Further mor e. the choice of whether or not to follow your client's instructions was clearly in your discretion. even if you thought smearing me would be in your client's best interest.

Areas of legal representation not affecting the merits of the cause or substantially prejudicing the rights of a client call for the lawyer to make his own judgments. EC 7-7.

"In assisting his client to reach a proper decision, it is often desirable for a lawyer to point out those factors which may lead to a decision that is morally just as well as legally permissible. ... In the event that the client in a non-adjudicatory matter insists upon a course of conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the lawyer but not prohibited by Disciplinary Rules, the lawyer may withdraw from employment." EC 7-9.

"[W3 hen an action in the best interest cf his client seems to him to be unjust. he may ask his client for permission to f er-ago such action." EC 7-9.

Instaad. vcu chose to proceed with gathering information 3 bout in e . Such scti vi ty as requested by vour client and as autnori:ed av vour law firm has no place in our society or within the legal profession.

"In adversary proceedings, clients are litigants and though ill feeling may e>:i st between cl i ent s , such ill feelings should not influence a lawyer in his conduct. attitude, and demeanor toward opposing lawyers. ... COlffensive tactics by lawyers interfere with the orderly administration of justice and have no procer place in our legal system." EC 7-07.

The Ethical Considerations further states "The duty of a lawyer, both to his client and to the legal system, is to represent his client :ealously within the bounds of the law, which includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations." EC 7-1.

Jack R. Newman, Esquire Pace Four Apetl 9, 1985 Your actions are not only offensive to the Ethical Considerations. They also stand in violation of Disciplinary Rules.

"In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall nott (1) ... take other action on behalf of his client when he knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another (8) Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a disciplinary rule." DR 7-lo2(A).

Knowing that what your client had in mind was a violation of the Disciplinary Rules or at least likely to lead to such a violation, you had an ubligation to refuse to cooperate, an obligation you willingly violated.

Withdrawal of employment is warranted when the client

"(1) (c) Insists that a lawyer pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under the Disciplinary Rules" or

"(2) His continued employment is likely to result in a violation of a Disciplinary Rule." DR 2-110(C)

Viewing your letter of February 1 in the light of this latest discovery, I find there is a need to set the record straight on at least one matter. You knew the minute I first brought it up that Mr. Yenouskas had made such an inquiry there was no need for you to " check" about that fact, as your February I letter states. Consequently, I hold you personally responsible for the fact this inquiry was made and for the intentions implicit in the inquiry.

find very significant to the licensing Ycu seemed to it proceeding that your client supposedly responded promptly with remedial action when the NRC discovered violations. Investigation I submit that the discovery of the Newman and Holt:inger, P.C.

also calls for some remedial action.

Thus far, you and your client have chosen the path of falso of excuses and stonewalling. While your client may be ignorant the ethical rules governing the behavior of lawyers and may have no independent commitment to ethical behavice which would motivate them, as members of the Bar, you and your colleagues have an obligation to repair the damage you have done to the legal profession by your actions. I would suggest, therefore, that a public apology and a promise not to engage any further in such activities is in order.

o Jack R. Newman, Esquire Page Five April 9, 1985 In addition, you should advise your client, Houston Lighting and Power that a similar apology and promise is in order from them.

I await your response within ten days.cf the date of this letter before taking any further action on this matter.

Sincerely, s

Lanny Sinkin 3022 Porter St., N.W. #304 l-Washington, D.C. 20008 l

(202) 966-2141 i

c.c. See Service List i

l l

I l

. ( ,

N CCCMETED November 20, 1984  ;:iMC E W 10 moco Registrar Selective Service System DA 5-i 1023 31st Street, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20435 0FFICr 00CHN fNg:1RANC

Dear Sir - ... ,

I am writing to request that you release to me a copy of all publically available draft records concerning the following individual:

Name Lanny Alan Sinkin Home Address: 215 Crescent Avenue San Antonio, Texas.

Date of Birth: February 6, 1946.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

. Sincerel ,

Joseph Yenouskas

,~

1020 N. Quincy Street Apt. 505 Arlington, VA. 22201

h. W

. .A A J[~ asunD ca u t TE'-

USN.".C January 9, 1985 p 10 m:30

- f0C 1N E -

Mrs. Bishop C Records Office Selective Service System 1023 31st Street,N.W. -

Washington D.C. 20435 ,

Dear Mrs. Bishop :

In accordance with our telephone call which took place today, I am resubmitting my letter of November 20, 1984, requesting any and all available draft records which are publically available concerning Lanny Alan Sinkin.

Thanks for your help and attention to this mixup.

Sincerely, L W os hY uskas JY/mb Enclosure l

l I

I

' NU EA$ t3TOEv' C05PIISSION 3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD s

In the Matter of ( M6

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND ( Docket Nos. 50-498 OL C%'JSNRC MUD POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, (

units i and 2) (

15 NRt10 NO:30 GEBILE1Q8IE QE SEBylgg MFICr 0F SECHGANY I hereby certify that copics of the letter from M dg PMICC to Jack Newman dated April 9, 1985 were served by deposif he U.S. Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 9th day of April 1985. ,

Gary J. Edles, Esquire Thomas S. Moore, ,E,s quire, . . . .

Chairman, ASLAB Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U. S. N. R. C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Joseph Yenouskas Administrative Judge Newman and Holt:inger, PC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 1615 L St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Sta.

Austin. Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb. III Administrative Judge Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esquire Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.

313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esquire Hill Associates 1615 L Street NW. Suite 1000 210 Montego Drive Washington, D.C. 20036 Danville. California 04526 Melbert Schwar:. Esquire Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy Buchorn 300 One Shell Pla:a Executive Director, C.E.U. Houston, Texas 77002 l

Pcute 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.

U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Comm.

Washington. D.C. 20555 William S. Jcrdan, III, Esq.

Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing 2001 S Street. N.W., Suite 430 Washington. D.C. 20009 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

l Pat Coy Washington, D.C. 20555 5106 Casa Oro Docketing and Service Section San Antonio, Texas 78233 Office of the Secretary l

Ray Goldstein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

807 Brazos Washingto D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78701-255; . .

- - nu =------------------

Lann' Sinkin i