Turpin v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2001-ERA-37 (ALJ Nov. 29, 2001)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges Seven Parkway Center - Room 290 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 (412) 644-5754 (412) 644-5005 (FAX)

Issue date: 29Nov2001

CASE NO.: 2001-ERA-00037

In the Matter of:

HUGH K. TURPIN
    Complainant

    v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.,
AND BWXT Y-12, L. L. C.
    Respondents

   By Motion received November 19, 2001, Complainant moves to disqualify the law firm of Kramer, Rayson, Leake, Rodgers & Morgan and the General Counsel of BWXT Y-12 (BWXT) from representing both Respondents Lockheed and BWXT in this proceeding. Complainant argues that the multiple representation of Lockheed and BWXT is prejudicial to his interests, contrary to the public interest, and threatens the integrity of the hearing process.¹ Respondents submitted a response by facsimile of November 19, 2001.

   The courts have held that disqualification of counsel is a drastic measure which should be used only when absolutely necessary. Disqualification is only permissible when a specific identifiable impropriety has occurred. Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689 F. 2d 715, 721 (6th Cir. 1982), Panduit Corp v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., 744 F. 2d 1564, 1576 (7th Cir. 1984). Despite a lengthy argument in support of his motion, Complainant has not provided any basis for concluding that there is any impropriety in the Kramer law firm and the General Counsel's office representing both respondents. Lockheed is the former contractor and BWXT the successor contractor of the Department of Energy facility where Complainant was formerly employed. Complainant has filed a complaint alleging that both Respondents have discriminated against him in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U. S.C. § 5851. Neither the Kramer law firm nor the General Counsel's office has ever represented Complainant in this proceeding or in any proceeding, and there is no apparent conflict of interest. Complainant has not shown how he will be prejudiced if both Respondents have the same counsel, and I can find no justification for disqualifying counsel from representing two defendants in a proceeding such as the present case. None of the precedents cited by Complainant are applicable to the facts of this case and they do not support disqualification of Respondents' counsel. Complainant's motion is therefore denied.

¹Complainant's motion is somewhat puzzling as it seeks to disqualify both the Kramer law firm and the General Counsel's office. Even if Complainant's allegations of impropriety were correct, which they are not, there can be no possible conflict of interest if the Kramer law firm represents Lockheed and the General Counsel's office represents BWXT.