ML20155G751
| ML20155G751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1986 |
| From: | Hensley M GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-053, CON-#286-53 LRP, NUDOCS 8605070110 | |
| Download: ML20155G751 (9) | |
Text
?! i
(
T4p May 2, 1986 6
MY ~5 mn 39 UNITED STATES OF AMERICKr/c 3..OfTARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIdisIONI),E. j '^lLT BR ric BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION)
RESPONSE OF GARY P. MILLER TO SUPPLEMENT TO AAMODT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF ATTORNEYS PROVIDING JUDICIARY LAW On March 14, 1986, the Aamodts filed a " Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys."
In the Memorandum and Order of March 26, 1986, the Presiding Board directed the Aamodts to supplement their motion "with an explanation of how, in their view, the present arrangements for counsel conflict with the i
Rules of Professional Conduct (or other principles generally accepted by the courts),
including specific reference to particulars of those arrangements."
Memorandum and Order at 17.
On April 18 the Aamodts filed their " Supplement to Aamodt Motion for Dismissal of Attorneys Providing Judiciary Law" (the Supplement).
For the following 8605070110 860502 PDR ADOCK 05000320 0
PDR h) )(
L
I Y O reasons, Mr. Miller requests that the Aamodt motion be denied.
Although we have not received a transcript of the April 24 prehearing conference, we understood Mrs. Aamodt to have said on that occasion that she did not oppose Metropolitan Edison Company's reimbursement of its employees for the legal fees they incur in this proceeding.
Thus, the only argument in Mrs. Aamodt's Supplement that appears to be addressed to Mr. Miller's lawyers is this one:
Clearly, all attorneys now representing employees have and continue to represent GPU, its subsidiaries or associated organizations on other matters.
[ Footnote omitted.]
Thus, none of these firms can represent these employees regardless of the employees' consent.
Supplement at 6.
This argument appears to be based on Disciplinary Rule 5-105 and its supporting Ethical considerations.
DR 5-105, most of which is in effect in Virginia and thus governs generally the professional conduct of l
Mr. Miller's lawyers, provides in part:
(A)
A lawyer shall decline proffered employment if the exercise of his indepen-dent profecsional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered employment, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing
6.
interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C).
'(B)
A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of his indepen-dent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C).
(C)
In the situations covered by DR 5-105 (A) and (B), a lawyer may represent multiple clients if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the possible effect of such representation on the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of each.
ABA Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 (1979); Cf. Va. Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 (1986) (Omits reference to " differing interests").
A comparable provision in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) provides in part:
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes i
the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and (2) each client consents after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client i
r
. i may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation.
Neither of these ethical requirements provides any basis whatever for disqualifying Mr. Miller's lawyers.
First, as pointed out in the Affidavit of Michael W. Maupin (Affidavit) that accompanied Comments of Gary P. Miller on the Board's Questions and Concerns, dated March 3, 1986, Mr. Miller has consented to his representation by Hunton & Williams in this proceeding after a full discussion of the firm's representation of GPU Nuclear affiliates in unrelated matters.
Insofar as the consent of GPU Nuclear is involved, Hunton & Williams, as pointed out in the Affidavit, first considered representing Mr.
Miller precisely because General Public Utilities Corporation, the parent of General Public Utilities Nuclear, asked it to.
In any event, GPU Nuclear has not objected to Hunton & Williams' representation of Mr. Miller in this proceeding.
_,. i Moreover, as far as DR 5-105 is concerned, we believe it is obvious that Hunton & Williams can adequately represent Mr. Miller in this proceeding while representing GPU Nuclear affiliates in the environmental matters described in the Affidavit.
Mrs. Aamodt has suggested nothing that would support a different conclusion.
Insofar as MRPC 1.7 is concerned'we know of no reason why Hunton & Williams' representation of Mr. Miller will adversely affect its relationship with GPU Nuclear's affiliates or vice versa.
Hunton &
Williams has represented both Mr. Miller and one or more GPU Nuclear affiliates for over five years, and we know of no way in which the representation of one has adversely affected the representation of the other.
Again, Mrs. Aamodt has pointed to none.
l In summary, neither DR 5-105 nor MRPC 1.7 has been violated here, and there is no basis whatever for disqualifying Hunton & Williams as Mr. Miller's counsel.
i I
4 i
n-n.
v-.,
- -.0 (l 1l Respectfully submitted, GARY P. MILLER By W Ouo O!A Maria C. Heniseyg Counsel Of Counsel Michael W. Maupin Maria C. Hensley Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dated:
May 2, 1986 fe
?.'
t
a 1
May 2, 1986
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4
I certify that copies of the Response of Gary P.
Miller to Supplement To Aamodt Motion for Dismissal of Attorneys Providing Judiciary Law, dated May 2,
- 1986, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid:
s.
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
ATTENTION:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
l t
y
.~ - _ -.
's Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Jerry R.
Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ernest L.
Blake, Jr., Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 WasI.ington, D.C.
20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.
Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street P.O.
Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 James B.
Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602
-e t
r
- a Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Mr. Norman O. Aamodt Box 652 Lake Placid, New York 12946 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Mr. Norman O. Aamodt 200 North Church Street Parkesburg, Pennsylvania 19365 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 YAJ16 Yk Maria C.
- Hensley, jr Counsel for Gary P. Miller Dated:
May 2, 1986 l-l l