Opinion ID: 2585937
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Allegation of partiality

Text: In August 2003, shortly after arbitrator Paul Davis issued his supplemental findings, attorney Susan Reeves sent Davis a letter claiming that she had recently learned of undisclosed ties between Davis and Bill Bankston, counsel for Alaska Sales and Service. In her capacity as counsel to Kinn and Singletary, Reeves requested that Davis disclose and describe any business dealings that you presently have, have had in the past year, or anticipate in the next 6 months, with Mr. Bankston or his law firm. Davis sent a letter to Reeves and Bankston stating that he had had prior dealings with the firms representing both sides. He and Bankston had both been involved in Veco Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission, Inc., a case that was settled in January 2003. Davis explained that he acted as counsel for a codefendant to Mr. Bankston's client, and noted that [a]lthough our clients were aligned, there were independent interests of my client that were separate from the interest[s] of Mr. Bankston's client. [5] He pointed out that there was one remaining collateral matter, and that if that matter developed into litigation, Mr. Bankston and I will be representing opponents. In addition, Davis noted that he referred bankruptcy cases to a partner of Bankston from time to time, and that Davis's partner, Ron Black, had recently referred a case to Bankston's office because of a conflict of interest. Davis maintained that he d[id] not have reason to anticipate that Mr. Bankston will refer any other cases to me during the next six months. Davis's letter also discussed his dealings with Tom Amodio, a member of Reeves's firm. Davis described Amodio as a friend of mine, in much the same manner that Mr. Bankston has been, and noted that Amodio's wife, Debra Fitzgerald, has performed substantial (and uniformly excellent) legal work for me on and off for close to twenty years, and I hold her as a close friend, even closer than either Mr. Amodio or Mr. Bankston. Amodio had referred several cases to Davis in the past, including one that had settled in the previous year, and Davis ha[d] no reason to think that either Mr. Amodio will or will not refer cases to me within the next year. Davis also asserted that he had used space in Reeves's and Amodio's firm to prepare for a trial when his own firm was in the process of moving. Finally, Davis maintained that he had been approached to handle the present case by both Bankston and Amodio, and that, although he was long time friends with both attorneys, had referred and/or been referred by both, and had personal dealings with both, neither side had raised doubts about his partiality at the outset. In response to this letter, Reeves requested additional information about Davis's work in Veco, including the amount that Davis's firm had billed in that case, and whether Davis had spoken with Bankston about Veco during the arbitration of the present case. Although Reeves claims never to have received a response, the excerpt contains a letter from Davis answering Reeves's questions. In addition to discussing his work in Veco in greater detail, Davis noted that, when negotiating his retainer with the attorneys in the present case, he told the group that because all of them were my friends I would not require that more [than one day's fees] be deposited. Davis addressed the issue whether he was biased toward Bankston because of his work in Veco as follows: Although not solicited by you, it is clear to me that you or your client are concerned that I might have loyalties to Mr. Bankston arising out of the Agrium [6] case. I want to make it perfectly clear that Agrium was not referred to me by Mr. Bankston or anyone in his office. Agrium was referred to me by Rick Baldwin. . . . Just prior to the referral to me, Mr. Baldwin's firm found themselves in a conflict because they represented both AEG & T and Agrium which, as I outlined above, had conflicting interests. Because of the conflict situation his firm was in, it was decided that the AEG & T client would be referred to Mr. Bankston's office, and the Agrium client would be referred to my office. I owe nothing to Mr. Bankston for that referral[;] he, along with myself, were the beneficiaries of Mr. Baldwin's judgment. If you have any questions in this regard, please call Rick Baldwin . . . and I am sure he will confirm what happened. Finally, in support of her argument that Davis was not impartial, counsel for Kinn and Singletary points to an advertisement for a continuing legal education program held in September 2003, which was coordinated by Bankston. The program featured Davis as one of two Anchorage attorneys on the plaintiff's team in a mock trial.