ML20099D169

Informs That No Conflict of Interest Exists W/Respect to Representation of Lipinsky vis-a-vis Concurrent Representation of Norris & Ob Cannon & Son,Inc,Per Roisman Objection.Related Correspondence

ML20099D169
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/15/1984
From:	Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, OLIVER B. CANNON & SON, INC.
To:	Bloch P, Grossman H, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-214 OL-2, NUDOCS 8411200231
Download: ML20099D169 (3)

Text

k g.,o _

A ~F e

~

, m ' -

y- '

y-w o , .

e;g[gg:;,

~w w m 1 e

,' ! RE(ATED CORRESPONDENC$ '

L7 ~

'n  :

P .

ilSHAM;UNCOLN & BEALEgggggs a '

y - d> ,  : COUNSELORS AT LAW ;.

g3ggg; .

'+ W

.. Q -

[ gg ggy gg '

_E.

" - [

hgg y '84' 107 '1"9 ,A11::30' ._

~ _

x m Ca cu.oau,.Ois

}JEM S. M M'm

' IIOaERT T. UseCOLN. 1873-1000 ;

.)  : TELEPHONE 312 90H900 '

TE R 2.m 8. WASHesGTON OFRCE 1130CONNECTICUTAWENUE.N.W. '

wituams.aEate. ie s.ie s 4

rFFICr v SECREi m suim

- ~-

1 0

'U0CKETI5G & SE8vHT ' ****'"f,Edf " ~

s (November 115W1984 1SRANCH

> c

~

• LPeter.;B.aBloch,I Esquirei .. . Herb'ertiGrossman,: Esquihei

, Chairman,fAtomiczSafety and- .

_ Alternate? Chairman.. ( 1

_. Licensing Board: .,l _ AtomiciSafetysand Licensing:,-

'U;'S. Nuclear' Regulatory _ fBoardi ..

JU.fS.-NuclearDRegulatory-

. Commis'sion '~

Washington, D.C. L20555-

. Commission

~

. 1 xwashington, D.C. !205551 4

--Dr.JWalterDH.l Jordan .u Administrative': Judge 881 West Outer Drive

. Oak Ridge, TennesseeE?37830-

~

- Re:- InEthe Matter ofJTexas Utilities ~i

, Electric Company,-- et ' al'.: s(Comanche Peaki I L

.' Steam Electric Sta hoe ~ Units.1"cand.2)~

Docket Nos.n 50-445-2-and 50-446-2 Gentlemen:.

Mr. Roisman advised me yesterday 1that'he intended to object to my representation in the O.B. Cannon' matter. -It'was my understanding that he objected to'my representation of i- Messrs._ Lipinsky and Norris on the ground that such represen-tation involves a conflict of interest. My secretary llater

, advised me that the Licensing Board has scheduled a telephonef conference for 10 a'.m., November 16, 1984 for;the purpose 1of

, addressing Mr. Roisman's-" motion" to disqualify my representa-

. tion of Mr. Lipinsky.on conflict-of-interest: grounds. .Appar . ~

ently-there.is no objection to my representation of Oliver B. ,

Cannon.&-Son, Inc. and.Mr. Norris. I further understand that '

Mr. Roisman's motion-has not been reduced.to; writing -- presum-ably.it would be presented for all to hear for the first time during the conference call.

l

_ I am unaware of the specific factual basis for Mr.

Roisman's belief that such a conflict exists. However, I have

examined again the prefiled testimony of Messrs. Roth, Trallo,

i. Norris and Lipinsky; and in my judgment no' conflict exists with

. respect _to my representation of Mr.,Lipinsky vis-a-vis my ,

2 concurrent representation of Mr. Norris or Oliver ^B. Cannon & -

~

J 8411200231 841115

-PDR ADOCK 05000445 -

9

. .PDR _Q

, . u-.x -- - . . ...---.....---.~-.----~.-.w...--- . - . - . - . - - . = - .

,f.

,+ ; -

!Novemberg15,11984i

?Page,2-

-Son,lInc. 'I ?have . discussed 5he matter -in detail with >Mr. -

'Lipinsky and he does not believe.such a conflict' exists.

Moreover,;I<have explained lto Mr. Lipinsky'that in the event a

- conflict were to arise in the future,uI would so advise him,.

seek a -recess, if necessary,: in :any _ ongoing; proceeding and '

' reconcile the. matter.

~

Assuming arguendo thatia conflict were toiarise in "the. future, Lit should not'be assumed-that.Mr.-Lipinsky would be Jcast. adrift lawyerless and without' assistance..'It.is conceiv-

.able that my representation would continue on Mr. Lipinsky's -

behalf and not on.beht.lf of the conflicting ~ party. ,Of course,. _

the reverse could occur.in which' event:it.would!be.my duty to-protect Mr. Lipinsky's right to-obtain counselLwithout_. jeopard-izing his interest in the meantime by;further: participation

'.beforejthe Licensing. Board._LThe point is that these considera- -

tions would be explored and resolved at the time that any such:

' conflict might.arise.- Mr. Lipinsky; understands the foregoing,, -

and-I can state unequivocably-that he has. voluntarily and with full understanding accepted my. representation on that. basis..

I consider Mr.-Roisman's action-to be untimely.and frivolous.- Nevertheless, his suggestion ~of my personal mis-conduct is a grave matter. The procedures for handling this-matterLshould be rigorously structured _to safeguard and pre -

serve the rights and interests of all. concerned. I do not believe a telephone conference call (with less than two _ days

~

notice) where the accused will hear the charges for the first-time and be expected to respond immediately with a resultant '

ruling comports with the required safeguards. I will, of

. course, participate in the conference call ordered by this ~

Licensing Board. However,.I do so without waiving any right to object that:

1. The Licensing Board does not have good cause to inquire into Mr. Roisman's charges because a proper written motion based on 10 C.F.R. SS 2.713 and 2.718 detailing the factual basis for the allegations has not been filed;

2. The Licensing Board cannot in the environment ~ of a hastily scheduled conference call participated in by necessarily ill-prepared counsel reasonably determine whether grounds

. exist.for disqualification; and i

$~

__ . , . . . . _ - _ , _ . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . - , , _ , ~ _ . . . _ , . , , . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ . .

n .4

.; g ,

' ^

, - Novembsr .15, ._198 4 (Page 3 '

i 5

3. , The Licensing Board 'does not. ~have jurisdiction.to1 consider this matter on the merits.

Sincerely, f

Joseph Gallo-.

Counsel to' Oliver B..: Cannon

& Son, Inc., and: Messrs.

'Norris'and Lipinsky

.JG:sv

^

Jcc: Service List-Alan S. Rosenthal,-Esq.

Dr. W. Reid Johnson

, Thomas ' S. - Moore , - Esq.

e l

l l

1 l

N+ - ,- - . , . . , , . -.

g ,. ...-.,,.,,---,,m.,,y,---.e... ,- - - - , - . , , _ - - ,e--