ML20236R806
| ML20236R806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1987 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4888 OL, NUDOCS 8711240043 | |
| Download: ML20236R806 (2) | |
Text
,,i ' o.
n RO P E s & G RAY 000ETE0 225 FRANKLIN STREET UMRC BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS O2110
'87 le 19 40 57-As-010N IN PROVIDENCC -
30 sLENNEDY PL AZ A g
TELtX NOMBER940519 ROPGRALOR BSN
" 1001 TWE NTY SECON D STRECT, N W PR OVI D E NCE, R 1.02903 TELEX NWBER 95I973 ROPES GRAY 9$N WASHINGTON. D C 20037 (40s) 521-6400 f tLCCOPiEPS. 6th 423 2377 tel714231841 202) 429-8600 TELECOPIER (doll 521-0 960 Nf tnNAflONAL.f6s?) 423-6905 R
November-16, 1987 i
i Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Chairman, Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re:
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL and 50-444-OL i
l
Dear Chairman Smith:
On Friday, November 13, 1987, I received a copy of a letter addressed to you from Messrs. Brock,_Backus'and Oleskey purporting to label certain conduct on my part as
" improper".
At the outset I note that this letter is_ signed by three lawyers none of whom represents the witness who allegedly was under attack.
Furthermore, While the letter contains suggestions for action by the Board,--it is not in any form or content recognized by the Rules L of Practice ' of the Commission.
For this failure alone I would be wholly justified in simply ignoring the letter absent a Board l
request for a response.
However, I submit certain other comments on this matter are in order:
To begin with, Mr. Oleskey served the letter l
on the service list for _ this case and, in addition, one'other individual, Congressman Edward J. Markey.
So far as I know, Mr. Markey is not a party or a 5 2.715(c) participant:in this proceeding.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the letter, has received publicity on at least two radio stations'
. in the State of New Hampshire.
Finally, even.if one accepts as accurate the inferences and insinuations contained in:the letter, the bottom line of what in compla_ined of is that an attorney for a witness was forcefully advised ofethe obligation of the. witness to' testify candidly and truthfully.
This conduct is hardly' improper, nor does.it call:for an l
apology.
l k
D G
_...--____..---_-_-__.--_.L--
1 w
e n
ROPts & GRdY Admin. Judge Ivan W. Smith November 16, 1987 Regretfully, a pattern is developing in this hearing of an attempt by certain lawyers to engage in intimidation of the lawyers with whom they perceive disagreement.
This
.I letter is an obvious effort to' intimidate me in my role as i
counsel for the applicants.
This is not dissimilar to an accusation made against me in open court of attempting to drag out Dr. Ceder's cross-examination so that it could not be finished in time before he had to leave the country, II. 5246, and accusations that my conduct in interrogating witnesses is " outrageous," Ir. 5128.
As you are also aware a
)
letter by one of the counsel-signing the letter under discussion has been sent to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission complaining about staff counsel's impartiality.
J l
You are, of course, aware of the shibboleth often used by trial lawyers to the effect that "if you have no_ facts, pound the law; if you have no law pound the facts; and if you have neither law nor facts pound the table".
The letter I
which you have received from Messrs. Brock, Backus and l
Oleskey is, I respectfully suggest, a classic case of table l
pounding.
Hopefully, this will be the.last of the letter I
attacks on counsel.
Very truly yours, l
- , x,-
y
/
l Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
TGDJr:kdr cc:
Service List Rep. Edward J. Markey
)
1 J