October 10, 2014 at 4:50 p.m.
Court to help England find lawyer
Court to help England find lawyer
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Peterson said he would assist England in recruiting an attorney to represent her in part of a lawsuit over whether she improperly took tissue and organs from the body of a deceased person to train cadaver dogs.
The lawsuit stems from criminal charges filed against England in 2012 alleging she used human remains without permission for a law enforcement exercise and to train her dog to search for corpses. She has since been sentenced to one year in jail for misconduct in public office.
The family of that deceased person filed the suit in January against England and Oneida County seeking unspecified damages.
Both England and the county have either denied all of the family's principal legal claims or have asserted insufficient knowledge about the claims.
While attorney Martin De Vries has been defending England against the central claims of the lawsuit, he is not representing her in arguments over whether she is covered under Oneida County's liability insurance policy, according to a letter De Vries wrote to the court in July.
The county's insurer, Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Company, hired De Vries soon after the suit was filed to represent England. The company initially determined that it had a duty to defend her under the county's liability policy. But in March, County Mutual sought to intervene in the suit and argued that the alleged actions England is being sued for were not committed within the scope of her employment with the county, and that therefore it does not have to pay her defense costs.
Whether or not England is covered under the insurance policy is important because County Mutual is effectively publicly funded. Oneida County has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums to County Mutual in at least the past few years for the liability policy; the county must also pay a $10,000 deductible because of the lawsuit. All of that money comes from the county's property tax levy.
Thus far, England has been representing herself on coverage issues, according to court filings. She told the court earlier this year that she has no money to retain an attorney, and she had asked that an attorney be appointed to represent her.
In his ruling, Peterson said he does not have authority to appoint an attorney in such a case, but that he could take efforts to find a lawyer.
"It is clear that counsel would be helpful to England in litigating coverage issues, so the court will grant this request, while noting that it may be difficult to locate counsel willing to take up this type of representation," Peterson wrote.
He indicated that finding an attorney could take several weeks, and that if one is not found, England would have to continue representing herself.
The plaintiffs supported England's request for counsel. In a court filing in September, Brent Jacobson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said England would benefit from having a lawyer represent her as arguments are exchanged over whether she falls under the county's liability insurance.
"Ms. England will surely face the task of complicated legal briefing on the scope of employment issues for purposes of insurance coverage," Jacobson wrote. "Thus, it is important for Ms. England to have an attorney assist her in responding to coverage challenges. Ms. England will also surely face an extensive line of questioning by both the insurer and the county on the scope of her employment at any deposition."
England could find an attorney through the Western District of Wisconsin Bar Association's pro bono program, according to Jacobson.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]
Comments:
You must login to comment.