Date: FEB 4 1997

Case Nos.: 95 CAA-20, 21 and 22

In the Matters of:

VIRGINIA JOHNSON,
Complainant [95 CAA-20]

and

KENNETH W. WARDEN
Complainant [95 CAA-21]

and

DENNIS MCQUADE
Complainant [95 CAA-22]

v.

OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
DOE INSPECTOR GENERAL;
PATRICIA HOWSE-SMITH
Respondents.

    On January 6, 1997, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause why complainant's counsel Edward A. Slavin should not be barred from future appearances before her, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.29, 34 and .38, because of a continuing pattern of willful misconduct, including the making of prohibited ex parte communications, engaging in disruptive actions, violating this tribunal's orders, and failing to abide by this tribunal's rules of practice.

    On January 27, 1997, Mr. Slavin filed a largely incomprehensible response, combined with other pleadings, filled, as usual, with savage invective, personal attacks on the undersigned, irrelevancies, and misstatements. For example, Mr. Slavin continues to assert that his motion to remand this case has been "under advisement since August 1995" as he says he told GAO investigators. (See Order of October 8, 1996,

at 4). The motion to remand was denied in the Order of August 24, 1995, pending resolution of DOE's dispositive motions. As has already been pointed out to Mr. Slavin in the Order of October 8, 1996, the Supreme Court of the state where he is a bar member finds no First Amendment protection for remarks critical of the judiciary where those statements are false. Rather, such statements can be prejudicial to the administration of justice and subject to disciplinary action. Ramsey v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 771 S.W. 2d 116 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1989).

    The Order of August 24, 1995, was issued in the interests of judicial economy because Wage-Hour had already dismissed these complaints as untimely, and DOE had moved in this forum to dismiss them as untimely. Cf. Reid v. Secretary of Labor, No. 95-3648, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33984 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 1996) (unpublished)(allegation that Administrative Law Judge committed reversible error by refusing to order discovery prior to ruling on the jurisdictional underpinnings of the case is meritless). As set forth in the October 8, 1996 Order, the delay in this case has been due to Mr. Slavin's failure to follow the Order of August 24, 1995 to restrict discovery to the issue of timeliness.

    It is evident from his intemperate response that Mr. Slavin, although he is an attorney, is unable or unwilling to conduct himself in an appropriate professional manner. Following his attacks on opposing counsel as "Nazis" and redneck pecker- wood[s]," he has now moved on to attacks on the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. His "style" of practicing law is, unfortunately, a prime example of the continuing problem of lack of civility in litigation, and cannot be tolerated. See e.g. Aspen, What We Can Do About the Erosion of Civility in Litigation, ABA Judges' Journal 32 (Fall 1996). Accordingly,

    IT IS ORDERED that Edward A. Slavin is permanently barred from appearing before the undersigned, in this or any other matter.

EDITH BARNETT

Administrative Law Judge

EB:bdw