Opinion ID: 1470023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court's May 2006 Contempt Finding

Text: In his December 6, 2005 order, the trial justice did more than find the Attorney General in contempt  he amended his original November order by adding paragraph 1.1, which said: The Court directs the Attorney General to cease and desist from making any subjective characterizations of the defendants or any of them or of their agents, servants or attorneys. Soon after, on February 22, 2006, [22] the trial justice again cautioned the parties: I don't want any discussion with this jury by anyone with respect to what motivated them to reach the decision that they did or anything else about the case. Nonetheless, further problems arose on February 22, 2006. Apparently flushed with victory, just after the jury returned a verdict on liability in favor of the state, the Attorney General posted a statement on his official website that thanked the jurors for their service, their attention to the facts and evidence that led them to this moment, and their courage in rendering a historic verdict that, ultimately, will help make Rhode Island a safer and better place to live. Matters were complicated further when, on the following day, The Boston Globe published this quote from the Attorney General: The companies failed to step up and clean up the problem they created   . The legal process has held them accountable and said you can't duck and run. Because of the Attorney General's duck and run comment and the website posting, defendants Millennium, Sherwin-Williams, and NL asked the trial justice again to find the Attorney General in civil contempt. Specifically, defendants asserted that labeling them as duck and run defendants violated the November order, as amended on December 6, 2005. They also argued that the Attorney General's praise of the jurors, who had not been discharged and had yet to deliberate on the punitive damage and remediation-plan issues, was an improper attempt to influence the panel. This, they alleged, violated Article V, Rule 3.5 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, [23] as well as the trial court's bench order of February 22, 2006. The defendants asserted that a second monetary sanction would be no more effective than the first, and that the appropriate sanction was dismissal of the punitive-damage claim. In response, the Attorney General continued to deny any impropriety; he asserted that his duck and run comment did not violate Rule 3.6 and that his comments to the jurors were not designed to say anything to them. At a hearing on May 1, 2006, the trial justice again held the Attorney General in civil contempt for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Superior Court's prior orders, noting that [t]his Court has no hesitancy in holding as I now do that the Attorney General is in further contempt. The trial justice scheduled another hearing to determine the resulting sanctions. At this hearing, defendants asserted that the Attorney General's continued misconduct warranted dismissal of the equitable abatement remedy sought by the state. The Attorney General, in turn, urged against the imposition of sanctions, arguing that the December order was constitutionally infirm because it was too vague to inform the parties as to what expression actually was prohibited. The trial justice memorialized his bench decision of May 1, 2006 in a written order on June 2, 2006, specifically finding the Attorney General in civil contempt of the November order, as amended on December 6, 2005, and, apparently, the court's directive of February 22, 2006. [24] The trial justice denied defendants' request for sanctions and he also denied the Attorney General's request to defer imposing a sanction until an appeal had been heard. Instead, the trial justice ordered that the Attorney General personally pay the clerk of the Providence County Superior Court $10,000, in addition to the previously imposed $5,000 sanction. [25]