The folks at Overlawyered were as appalled as I was (my post is here) by the un-veiled threat in Professor Speth’s lawsuit about grants in the Ole Miss pharmacy department. The language in the complaint was apparently national-level appalling, and Overlawyered calls out the lawyer who wrote the complaint, Christian Goeldner, for attention from the Mississippi bar ethics authorities. Further info of interest (along with some earlier Miss. Supreme Court delving into questions about ex parte conduct in an opinion I’d forgotten) is here.
Chris Goeldner is no stranger to the state bar disciplinary body.
Yep. The last link talks about one episode– that one only resulted in suspension.
what if the allegations are true? What makes you so sure that the allegations are false?
I don’t know one way or the other about the allegations in the complaint, except that the complaint seemed thin to me as a subjective viewer of it. I have literally no (zero) opinion about the prospects of that complaint based just on what the complaint itself says, and don’t think I’ve expressed an opinion (nor has Ben. His consider-the-source comment raises a different sort of problem, alluded to in my reply to his comment).
If the allegations are true, we’ll find out if they amount to a lawsuit.
There are a lot of possibilities here, and reading that complaint doesn’t narrow them down much farther for me than “The Pharmacy School and this professor have a troubled relationship.”
On the other hand, it should be clear that I’ve expressed negative opinions(and share the opinions expressed at Overlawyered) about the specific allegation I highlighted.
whistleblower complains about missppropiation of public funds and gets fired because heblew whistle. Sounds like a prima facie case to me.
Lemme wade out a little farther: I’ll be mildly surprised if this complaint survives the first motion for summargy judgment. I’ll be more surprised if it ever goes to a jury. And I’ll be quite surprised if plaintiff ever prevails on the “merits,” such as they have been stated in the complaint. I’m disappointed that a lawyer signed and filed the complaint in its present form. Counsel might have been better served had he let the client sign the complaint, assuming the client really felt the need to sound off publicly against university personnel who crossed him. I am confident the named defendants can well and accurately account for all their grant expenditures and time/research prorations. They’ve been doing it successfully for a long time. Plaintiff’s complaint unnecessarily and unfortunately sullies the professional names and reputations of career researchers and academicians. This civil action will go away, but the stains on credentials will always linger. Counsel should be ashamed.
Perhaps the named defendants have been successfully using grant monies for unauthorized uses for a long time because no one has blown the whistle on them. What is plaintiff subpoeanas other receipients of grant monies who know that some of their grant money has been used by the university in ways other than it was intended?
I have the idea that plaintiff really felt that he had been wronged and wanted to sound off publicly to expose the university. Others have been wronged but have not sounded off publicly because they fear for the loss of their jobs. Plaintiff has already lost his job at the university so he doesn’t have to fear for the loss of his job as do others who are still currently employed by the university.
I am aware that once the university get money, it is considered the university’s to use in whatever way it chooses. Perhaps this plaintiff wants to expose the university’s behavior. We remember that in the case in which Scruggs was brought down was just because that plaintiff wanted to publicly reveal the true nature of Dickie Scruggs in his dealings with others. I think this plaintiff wants to publicly reveal the truth of the university’s dealings with grant monies and some other privately donated money as well as to reveal the true attitude of the university toward academics.
All I know is what I read in the complaint– and by the way, doesn’t he still have the tenured position? As I read it, he just lost his department chairmanship and a smidgen of his income. Significant, but not exactly losing his job.
You may be mistaken about the university’s latitude in using grant money. My experience has been that grant proposals are narrowly drafted to meet the grantors’ funding standards. Expenses are receipted and verified, wages and salaries are carefully accounted for, time and allocation paperwork is painstakingly audited … grant money is anything but “unrestricted” money that can be doled out and spent willy-nilly.
But that’s not what this thread was about. It was about what many in the legal profession consider to be improper pleading practices. It was about loading legal pleadings with bile, with unjust characterizations, and other scurrilous comments. Lawyers know witnesses can’t make those kinds of statements on the witness stand … I guess they just have to blurt them somewhere, so blurt ‘em in the complaint. But a lawyer’s signature on a pleading is a professional representation that there is a factual basis for the claims or defenses.
If the university has misspent grant funds, and/or follows a practice of playing fast and loose with grant funds, wouldn’t the plaintiff have a duty to take his information to the FBI or the US Attorney? Wouldn’t the plaintiff’s failure to take his facts to the authorities form a foundation perhaps for a charge of misprision?
Plaintiff has plenty of opinions and characterizations. We shall see whether he has any facts.
What about the complaint was wrong for an attorney to do..or unethical? And I’m seriously curious, not being snarky. I’m not an attorney so just curious, because, well that’s my nature.
I do have to mention, the university wasn’t hiding from anyone. They are just mostly gone and people are hard to reach at this time of year over there. Unfortunately, I couldn’t hold it any longer than I had.
Anyway, I’m off all next week! I don’t know what to do with myself really. I haven’t been off for a week in..3 years? Just hoping all remains quiet.
Reminds me of the old saying about academic squabbles being overly rancorous because the stakes are so low.
The post (and the related post on Overlawyered) clearly ID the worst paragraph– the one about attention from the alumni and legislature. It has no utility as pleading, it’s just an insulting shot, and as such is unprofessional.
I know of one instance in which part of a private donation intended for a specific purpose was diverted into another fund. One person who knew about that diversion of funds received a private visit from the chancellor in which the chancellor stated, “Get yourself off the front page of the newspaper, or you will be hurt.”
I don’t know whether those diverted funds were ever put back to be used for the intended purpose or were maintained in a separate fund. But it does indicate that the university might “move money around.”
Stephens’ grant, I believe, involved federal funds which require much more scrutiny than private donations. Also, the award of the grant was based upon Stephens being appointed the “principal investigator,” a position the university took from him. It was Stephens’ research knowledge and experience that caused the grant to be awarded to UM. Many universities would care more than “a rat’s ass” about having a faculty member of that prominence on staff.
But, as Lurker earlier, stated, UM administration does not value major academic success of its faculty members; to the contrary, they are considered outsiders and are often demeaned by the administration. Their only value to UM is to use them to improve “the UM image” and to use them to get grant and award money.
I know that’s a joke, and I’ve heard it for years repeated by many professors.
However, the statement really insults the many academicians who work really, really hard in their area and provide great contributions to education and to society. Why is it that a professor who does important, perhaps life-saving research on peptides is valued ecomonically in our educational culture and society so very, very much less than a football coach?
No surprise, I guess, that the state’s leading university’s way of doing things would reflect (local, isolated) ruling-class values. But if those are still as you describe, Nomiss, what might ever change them?
Nomiss @ 9: Regarding the first paragraph of your post … I call bulls#%t.
And don’t confuse donations with research grants. A donation is just that … a donation. A gift. The donor can place such restrictions and limitations on the donation’s use as he deems appropriate. The university can accept the restrictions and limitations, or it can refuse them, in which case the donor can refuse to deliver the donation. Simple as that. It’s not a donation until it’s delivered. Once delivered and accepted, the donation’s strings bind its use.
The University Foundation holds numerous restricted scholarship gifts … the donor’s requirement may be that the recipient be from Claiborne County, or be an accounting major, or be a graduate of Columbia High School, or whatever. In the event a student can’t be matched with the donor’s intent, the university seeks the donor’s approval to go beyond the stated limitations just to keep the scholarship from lapsing. Some donors allow it … some don’t.
Some donors give to unrestricted university accounts so that the chancellor has a fund for special events, activities, programs, or any other legitimate project. It’s a safe bet that the Ford Center would never have been built at Ole Miss, and the presidential debates would not have been at Ole Miss, if the chancellor didn’t have access to unrestricted gifts.
Donations to the foundation are aggregated for investment purposes, but otherwise the foundation has to account for how the donations are spent and the foundation is liable for wrongful expenditures.
Research and program grants are not “donations.” They are specific awards for specific studies, projects, or other academic undertakings. Every expense that is paid is certified by someone who is the designated certifying officer. A certifying officer places his personal financial and career liability on the table with every certification.
Now if people want to insist that the university commingles grant monies, spends them as though they are personal walkin’ around money, and publicly states that it doesn’t give a rat’s ass about grant management and control, they are free to do so … just as they’re free to insist that the moon landings were trick photography.
But professionally responsible attorneys don’t paste into their pleadings the characterizations, the vitriol, the bile, the loose-cannon gripes their clients may have for the defendants.
How many times does it have to be said?
This is OT but forgive me because (a) it’s interesting and (b) Ben’s mention of the Ford Center prompts it.
When NMC was touring us around Ole Miss, he pointed out one more good reason for the Scruggses’ names to come down off the Music Building toot sweet: it’s just across the street from the Ford Center, where shortly the international press would be gathering. Not something anybody wanted them to see and write about again . . .
Ben Cole, you don’t have to lecture me about research grants and program grants, donations (restricted or unrestricted), or the University Foundation. I’m quite knowledgeable about each of them and how each of them works. I have full appreciation to all who donate to the university, and I have full appreciation to all who have done the work required and have been given the confidence to receive a grant.
And I really make a determined attempt to never post b#%t on a blog, but I bow to your omniscience.
Ben Cole and others. Are you guys practicing attorneys in Mississippi? If so, contact me at nj_brodeur_30@yahoo.com. I have a case that you may be interested in.
Thanks