ARB CASE NO. 00-076
ALJ CASE NOS. 99-CAA-25
00-CAA-9
DATE: November 16, 2000
In the Matter of:
DAVID W. PICKETT,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA),
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG),
GEORGE PROSSER & DONALD DRUMM,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant: Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq.,
  St. Augustine, Florida
For the Respondent: Edward S. Christenbury, Esq., Thomas F. Fine, Esq., Brent R. Marquand, Esq.,
Dillis D. Freeman, Jr., Esq., Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee
ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER
AND VACATE (OR CLARIFY) ORDER AND MOTION TO
HOLD HEARING ON MOTION
On November 2, 2000, the Administrative Review Board issued an Order
striking the Complainant's opening brief and permitting the Complainant to refile a brief
consistent with the Board's order postmarked no later than November 16, 2000. Complainant
subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider and Vacate (or Clarify) Order and Motion to Hold
Hearing on Motion.
[Page 2]
The Motion is DENIED. Counsel for Complainant argues that
our order violates Complainant's right to free expression. Counsel misapprehends our
order, in which we stated,
While counsel for Pickett has the right to criticize rulings of the
ALJ with which his client disagrees, he has no right to engage in
disrespectful and offensive personal attacks upon the ability and
integrity of the ALJ; such attacks violate counsel's
"professional obligation to demonstrate respect for the
courts." Id. at 6. Accord ABA Model
Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble, Rules 3.5 and 8.2
(1999).
Although Complainant has not requested additional time in which to resubmit his brief as
provided in our November 2nd Order, we extend the date on which the brief must be postmarked
until November 17, 2000.1