http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Aug5.html

Headline:

Judge Is Accused of Stake In Ruling
Ethics Complaint Cites Investments
advertisement



By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 6, 2003; Page A15


A federal judge in Wyoming violated federal ethics laws by ruling recently in a
major environmental case in a way that could "substantially affect" his
personal financial holdings, according to a complaint filed yesterday by two
public watchdog groups.

U.S. District Judge Clarence A. Brimmer on July 14 overturned a Clinton
administration rule barring most new road construction, logging and energy
exploration in nearly 60 million acres of remote national forests. At the time
Brimmer began hearing the case, in November 2001, he owned oil and gas company
stock and royalty rights worth $400,000 to $1.1 million, according to a
financial disclosure statement he filed in April 2002.

The new road rule has been under attack for two years by Western state
officials and by logging and oil and gas interests that said it would deny them
access to tens of billions of dollars' worth of potentially recoverable natural
resources. Brimmer did not divulge his holdings during the case or offer to
recuse himself, according to the court docket and one of the environmental
lawyers who defended the rule in the case.

Federal statutes and canons of judicial ethics prohibit judges from ruling in
cases in which they or their immediate families have a financial interest that
could be "substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." Potential
conflicts of interest on the bench have been a concern of the judiciary for
many years, and the U.S. Judicial Conference has taken steps to tighten
guidelines.

The Community Rights Counsel and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington yesterday petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit,
in Denver, seeking sanctions against Brimmer for engaging in "conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of
the courts."

"A judge simply cannot rule in a case in which their financial interests can be
affected," said Douglas T. Kendall, executive director of Community Rights
Counsel. "This is an enormously important case for the oil and gas industry
which can and will impact the fortunes of the companies in which this judge has
a financial interest."

Brimmer confirmed yesterday that his financial holdings include "certain gas
and oil companies," but said he saw no reason to disqualify himself from the
case because none of the companies was a party to the court case. He also said
that throughout the more than two years the matter was before his court, "the
parties in the case have never raised any issue about the propriety of my
involvement."

Brimmer said that "any party in litigation before me may file a motion for
consideration of this issue, or, if I have already ruled, may appeal my
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit."

One of the environmental lawyers who defended the Clinton rule before Brimmer
said yesterday that he had been unaware of the judge's oil and gas holdings
during the trial. Steve C. Jones, a lawyer for the Wyoming Outdoor Council,
said his group might have petitioned the judge to recuse himself, depending on
the extent of his holdings. "We certainly would have liked to have known about
it," he said. (cont)