<< COB0000001 >>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL et al.,	)
		)
	Plaintiffs,	)
		)
	V.	)	Case No. l:96CV01285
	)	(Judge Lamberth)
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior et 4~,	)
	)
Defendants.	)
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS' COMMENT ON THE SEVENTH REPORT OF THE COURT MONITOR
	On May 16, 2002, the plaintiffs filed "Plaintiffs' Comment On The Seventh Report Of
The Court Monitor" ("Plaintiffs' Comment"). It is riddled with reckless accusations of, among
other things, "malfeasance," "misconduct," ~'abuse of authority," "misrepresentations," "lies,"
"fraud," "bad faith," "obstruct[ion]," "obfuscat[ion]," and "unethical behavior." See Plaintiffs'
Comment p~~im. Plantiffs describe the Secretary of the Interior ("Secretary") as "incompetent
and inept," and allege that the Secretary is "play[ing] politics and undermin[ing] the integrity of
this litigation," is "obsessed with silencing all criticism," is "unfit to manage the Individual
Indian Trust," and is "wholly incapable of implementing meaningful trust reform" Id at 1 4.
They claim that the Department of the Interior ("Interior") defendants and their counsel have
"abuse[d] jjauthority in the pursuit of untoward and illegitimate ends," id at 2 have "viciously
attacked" the Special Master id and that counsel has "maliciously attacked" the Court Monitor,
id and made "slanderous accusations" about his Seventh Report in a "bald-faced attempt to
browbeat the Court Monitor into silence," j~ at 3. They accuse Interior defendants and their
counsel of "using all their authority and resources in an effort to undermine the integrity of this
<< COB0000002 >>
litigation, even if they have to wage a war to discredit truth-telling Interior employees and even
judicial officers." Id. at 3. They allege that "the attorney misconduct and unethical behavior
detailed in [the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor]  and demonstrated repeatedly throughout
the six years of this litigation  warrants a referral to the Disciplinary Panel of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia... for sanction." Id. at 4.
	The Interior defendants and their counsel are not willing to ignore plaintiffs' extreme
incendiary rhetoric or their transparent efforts to disqualify any attorney who dares to provide a
defense to their allegations. While plaintiffs are "free to believe whatever they choose to
believe," they "are not free to indiscriminately bludgeon the professional reputations of [Interior
defendants and their counsel] out of frustration, or in angry overreaction, or on mere suspicion
alone." Nault's Auto. Sales. Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.. 148 F.R.D. 25, 36 (D.N.H.
1993); see also In re Johnson 236 B.R. 510, 523 (D.D.C. 1999) ("When making -. . scandalous
and highly insulting allegations, counsel should be aware that, without credible evidence, the
allegations seem childish at best. At worst these allegations strain the court's patience, waste the
court's resources and smack of the improper purposes that both [Bankruptcy] Rule 9011 and
Rule 11 are supposed to prevent."). The plaintiffs' "deluge of ad hominem assaults and
insupportable accusations," Nault's Auto. Sales, 148 F.R.D. at 36, have no place in documents
submitted to the Court.
	Neither the Plaintiffs' Comment nor the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor provides a
factual basis for these sweeping allegations of wrongdoing. The Interior defendants filed a
2
<< COB0000003 >>
Response to the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor that addresses the serious, fundamental
problems with the Seventh Report, and will not repeat themselves here. however, challenging
mistaken allegations of misconduct is neither "a bald-faced attempt to browbeat the Court
Monitor into silence," Plaintiffs' Comment at 3, nor a "malicious[] attack[] [on] the Court
Monitor " id at 2. And defending against unfounded allegations (whether made by the plaintiffs
or the Court Monitor) is not a "transparent and desperate effort to obstruct, stall and obfuscate."
Id. at 3. Plaintiffs' suggestion that "the attorney misconduct and unethical behavior detailed in
the [Seventh Report of the Court Monitor]" warrants a referral to the Disciplinary Panel of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, id. at 4, appears to be part of an
ongoing strategy to disqualify any attorney who dares to provide such a defense. As explained in
the Interior Defendants' Response To The Seventh Report Of The Court Monitor, the Court
Monitor's intimations of impropriety on the part of government counsel were wholly
unwarranted.
	The D.C. Bar Voluntary Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct ("Civility
Standards") state:
In carrying out our professional responsibilities, we will treat all
participants in the legal process, including counsel and their staff.
parties, witnesses, judges, and court personnel, in a civil,
professional, and courteous manner, at all times and in all
communications, whether oral or written.
We will not, even if called upon by a client to do so, engage in
offensive conduct directed toward other participants in the legal
process nor will we abuse other such participants in the legal
process. Except within the bounds of fair argument in pleadings or
3
<< COB0000004 >>
in formal proceedings, we will abstain from disparaging personal
remarks or acrimony toward such participants and treat adverse
~vitnesses and parties with fair consideration.
We will not bring the profession into disrepute by making
unfounded accusations of impropriety or making ad hominem
attacks on counsel, and, absent good cause, we will not attribute
bad motives or improper conduct to other counsel.
Civility Standards ~ 1, 3, 5. Although the Civility Standards are voluntary, this Court's Local
Rules expressly endorse them, see. e.g.. Local Civil Rule 83.8(b)(6)(v) (requiring applicants for
admission to the bar of the District Court to certify familiarity with Civility Standards); Local
Civil Rule 83.9 (requiring each member of the bar of the District Court to certify familiarity with
Civility Standards upon renewing membership every three years), and this Court has recognized
that "these standards provide useful and appropriate guidance to lawyers when questions are
raised about professional conduct." Alexander v. FBL No. CIV. 96-2123(RCL), 1999 WL
314170*1 (D.D.C. May 17, 1999) (directing all counsel planning to attend redeposition of
witness to certify in advance "that they have carefully read the D.C. Bar Voluntary Standards for
Civility in Professional Conduct"); see also Blumenthal v. Dmd~e, 186 F.R.D. 236, 239-40
(D.D.C. 1999) ("Lawyers are not to reflect in their conduct, attitude or demeanor their clients' ill
feelings toward other parties and may not 'even if called upon by a client to do so, engage in
offensive conduct directed towards other participants in the legal process,' or 'bring the
profession into disrepute by. . . making ad hominem attacks.... "' (quoting Civility Standards)).
The Plaintiffs' Comment falls far short of these standards.
4
<< COB0000005 >>
	Accordingly, Interior defundants file this Statement to object on the record to the reckless
and sweeping allegations of wrongdoing  and the intemperate, insulting, and inflammatory
rhetoric  found in Plaintiffs' Comment.
Dated: May 30, 2002	Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR.
	Assistant Attorney General
	STUART E. SCHIFFER
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
	3. CHRISTOPHER KOHN
Director
	SAND	P. SPOONER
D.C. Bar No. 261495
Deputy Director
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ
Senior Trial Attorney
CYNTHIA L. ALEXANDER
Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
P.O. Box 875
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875
(202) 514-7194
OF COUNSEL:
Sabrina A. McCarthy
Department of the Interior
Office of the Solicitor
<< COB0000006 >>
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
	I declare under penalty of perjury that, on May 30, 2002 I served the Foregoing Interior
Defendants ' Statement Regarding Plaint ifs' Comment on the Seventh Report 0/the Court
Monitor, by facsimile in accordance with their written request of October 31, 2001 upon:
Keith Harper, Esq.	Dennis M Gingold, Esq.
Native American Rights Fund	Mark Brown, Esq.
1712 N Street, NW	1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976	Ninth Floor
202-822-0068	Washington, D.C. 20004
	202-31 8-2372
by Facsimile and U.S. Mail:
Alan L. Balaran, Esq.
Special Master
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
12th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 986-8477
by U.S. Mail upon:
Elliott Levitas, Esq.
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
by U.S. Mail upon:
Joseph S. Kieffer, Ill
Court MQnitor
420 - 7~ Street, N.W.
Apartment 705
Washington, D.C. 20004	79.
	Kevin P. Kings~9n