- LOS ANGELES -- The judge
in a Monsanto price-fixing trial in Chicago has been asked to remove himself
from the case on conflict of interest grounds after it emerged that he
previously worked for a law firm that represented Monsanto and had been
listed as a lawyer for the company.
-
- Judge Rodney Sippel is currently presiding in a case
involving Monsanto, the driving force behind the development of genetically
modified food, and other major seed firms. A class-action lawsuit being
brought against the company claims that Monsanto was party to a deal to
fix seed prices, a claim denied by Monsanto.
-
- Three months ago, Judge Sippel ruled in favour of Monsanto,
Pioneer and other big seed firms and denied the case class-action status.
He did not disclose to the parties that in 1997 and 1998 he had been listed
as an attorney representing Monsanto in a similar case, according to lawyers
and court documents quoted by the New York Times yesterday.
-
- Now lawyers for the plaintiffs have written to the judge
suggesting that he step down from the case. Judge Sippel has scheduled
a public hearing on the issue for January 30. He is declining to discuss
the matter until then.
-
- According to the documents, before his 1998 appointment
as a judge, Mr Sippel had been selected by his law firm, now known as Husch
and Eppenberger, as one of a team of three lawyers to represent Monsanto
in a civil lawsuit with Pioneer Hi-Bred International, another seed company.
The law firm accepts that Mr Sippel was listed in court papers as one of
the lawyers involved but says that, in fact, he did not work on the case.
-
- Mr Sippel, 47, was appointed a judge by Bill Clinton
and has also worked as an administrative aide for Dick Gephardt, a Democratic
party presidential hopeful. Though his former employers say he never did
any work for Monsanto, the fact that he had been listed as a Monsanto lawyer
and had worked for a firm that handled the Monsanto account would seem
to raise a conflict of interest issue. At the least, according to legal
experts, Mr Sippel should have declared the relationship between his former
law firm and the seed company before the case started.
-
- "The fact that he didn't disclose it is troubling,"
Deborah Rhode, a professor of law at Stanford University, told the New
York Times. "Courts are supposed to avoid the appearance of impropriety."
-
- Under the US judicial code of conduct, "a judge
shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited
to instances in which: the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
the proceeding." Other instances include when "the judge served
as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge
previously practised law served during such association as a lawyer concerning
the matter".
-
- Last year, Judge Sippel awarded Monsanto $2.9m (£1.58m)
in damages against a Tennessee farmer it had accused of violating a patent.
In that case, Judge Sippel disclosed that he had been a lawyer for Husch
and Eppenberger, and also that the firm had represented Monsanto.
-
- The current action alleges that Monsanto held frequent
meetings with its chief competitors and persuaded them to raise the price
of GM seeds. Monsanto has admitted having meetings with executives of one
big firm but insists these were legal discussions about seed licensing
agreements.
-
- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2004
-
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1119991,00.html
|
