State Paid Barnes & Thornburg $9.6 Million For Losing Case Against IBM

The state's lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions in damages against IBM for the failed welfare privatization implementation was a dubious lawsuit from day one. It was no secret that the Daniels administration had conspired with the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg , which represented ACS, to concoct a plan to privatize the state's welfare services and steer the bulk of that work to the law firm's client. It began with making sure that Daniels appointed a former ACS executive, Mitch Roob, to run the agency. Roob and another former executive of ACS, former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith, immediately began pushing a model based on a privatization model being implemented by ACS in the state of Texas, one that would ultimately be chosen by the agency Roob ran. That model was known as "remote eligibility," one under which remote call centers would process all claims for welfare benefits over the Internet or over the phone rather than the traditional model of having case workers in county offices who met with those applying for benefits face-to-face. Word spread quickly among potential bidders that the bidding process was rigged in favor of the coalition of companies responding to the public bid, which was led by IBM but included ACS as the major subcontractor participant. In the end, all competitors dropped out of the bidding process, leaving the IBM-led coalition as the sole bidder for a more than $1 billion, 10-year contract, the largest in the state's history. The state inked a contract with the IBM-led team despite the fact that the model upon which it was based in Texas had been halted by that state's governor because problems with implementation were "so severe."

As Judge Dreyer's opinion denying all claims the state made against IBM found, the bulk of the services provided under the privatization contract were being performed by ACS, which was the source of most of the complaints against the system when its first rollout began. Instead of working with its prime contractor to work through the problems, ACS's lobbyist at Barnes & Thornburg, Joe Loftus, began meeting secretly with high levels of the Daniels administration behind IBM's back to undermine its control of the contract, including Gov. Mitch Daniels. Judge Dreyer noted one e-mail exchange that Loftus had with Roob where he complained that IBM "just didn't get it" in reference to frequent lectures he received from them reminding him that IBM was the lead contractor and the principal point of contract for all communications under the conract. Even ACS officials who testified at the trial conceded that Loftus' communications behind IBM's back constituted a breach of their contract, and the state was breaching its contract with IBM by engaging in the direct communications with ACS. These communications created "distrust" among the contract partners according to Judge Dreyer's opinion. "Certainly the State showed that IBM did not perform well in some respects, especially when trying to get subcontractor ACS Human Services ("ACS") to answer phones notwithstanding evidence of ACS lobbying against IBM in violation of its own subcontract." But Dreyer found plenty of evidence offered during the long trial where the state and IBM traded claims against one another where the state had given favorable reviews of IBM's work. One scoring of the company's performance prepared by FSSA's Zach Main gave the company 9 out of a possible 10 points. What the evidence showed was that IBM was being scapegoated as public pressure mounted to drop the privatization move, particularly from state lawmakers.

The state had the option of terminating its contract with IBM for convenience, but it chose instead to terminate the contract for cause and put ACS in charge of a new hybrid approach to delivering services, and to file a lawsuit against IBM seeking more than $150 million in damages, and IBM, in turn, filed a countersuit against the company seeking more than $100 million in damages. What stunned legal observers was a decision by Gov. Mitch Daniels personally to hire the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg to represent the state's interests over the objections of Attorney General Greg Zoeller given that it had been knee deep in representing ACS from day one. The engagement agreement entered into with the law firm contained pages of disclosures concerning the law firm's potential conflicts. Some legal observers questioned whether the conflicts of interest raised in the engagement letter were even waivable under the rules of professional conduct. A key deputy chief of staff in the governor's office, Betsy Burdick, worked with her brother at the law firm, Brian Burdick, to ink the deal. Although Burdick signed the agreement, he's a bond lawyer and not a litigator or an expert in contract law. According to the Star's Mary Beth Schneider, the state has paid the law firm a staggering $9.6 million to represent the state's interests in the lawsuit. If the Attorney General's office had been allowed to handle the lawsuit, existing state employees would have been utilized at no additional expense to the state. Instead, the very law firm which played an instrumental role in the privatization fiasco was allowed to profiteer from its own handiwork. Judge Dreyer ruled against all of the state's claims against IBM, and he ordered the state to pay IBM more than $52 million. Remarkably, one of the key attorneys handling the lawsuit against IBM for the firm, Peter Rusthoven, had the audacity to accuse Judge Dreyer of writing an opinion that contained "unnecessary political commentary that is neither accurate nor relevant." I think what he meant to say was that he used words that hit too close to home. He said the state will appeal Judge Dreyer's ruling, and the firm will charge the state at least another $250,000 for its services.

For the life of me, I do not understand why a criminal investigation has not been launched by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office. This has got to be one of the most corrupt deals in the history of Indiana state government. Hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars were being misspent simply so big campaign contributors of Gov. Mitch Daniels could make a lot of money with no concern at all to the services being provided using those tax dollars. One of the administration's biggest critics in the state legislature is a Republican lawmaker, State Sen. Vaneeta Becker (R-Evansville). “The whole thing could have been avoided if the state from the beginning had just provided new computers and additional training to caseworkers,” she told the Star's Mary Beth Schneider. “A lot of this could have been avoided and a lot of costs.” Gov. Daniels, for his part, was totally unapologetic about the outcome and says he expects the decision will be overturned on appeal. Even if the state loses on appeal, he told Schneider that the more than $52 million the state will be required to pay IBM was irrelevant because they "are so tiny compared to the savings we’re achieving.” The state has spent more than a half billion dollars to date on the privatization effort. What do you expect from a guy who told Congress when he was OMB Director that the Iraq war would only cost taxpayers $50 billion? Oh, and did I mention that Gov. Daniels put a former paid consultant for ACS, Mike Gargano, in charge of FSSA after Roob's successor, Anne Murphy, left the agency after a short stint running the agency? Her sole task was to get rid of IBM after Roob stepped down to become head of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. Murphy's short tenure simply provided cover for the conspiring parties. When that task was completed, she moved on and Gargano stepped in so ACS and Loftus would have a person under their thumb in charge of the agency.

IBM Lawsuit Closing Arguments

The six-week trial in the battling lawsuits between the state's Family and Social Services Administration and IBM over the failed welfare privatization initiative is coming to a close. There's been very little reporting of the trial to date, which will be decided by Marion Superior Court Judge David Dreyer. Media interest in the story waned after Gov. Mitch Daniels avoided having to testify at the trial after the Supreme Court ruled that he was immune from doing so under state law. The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette's Niki Kelly offers some interesting comments made by opposing lawyers during closing arguments. Barnes & Thornburg's John Maley argued for the state:

“Were there breaches? Scores and scores and scores,” said John Maley, the state’s primary lawyer. “Needy Hoosiers were not being well served.”

Maley said IBM clearly did not meet its contractual obligations to Indiana and the state suffered substantial damages by having to create a new hybrid system.

“It’s time for IBM to finally be held accountable,” Maley said . . .

He said the company could have invested more in the project by hiring more workers to improve the metrics, but IBM executives were focused on profit.

“Shareholders trump a million needy Hoosiers,” Maley said.

If needy Hoosiers being well served was the motive, there would not have been a privatization initiative. See my bombshell report on Carl Moldthan's inside account of the welfare privatization debacle. It was all about Mitch Roob, FSSA's former secretary, steering hundreds of millions of dollars to his former employer, ACS. That Barnes & Thornburg was even permitted to represent the state's interests in this lawsuit is nothing short of an outrage. The law firm has long represented ACS and has very close ties to Roob and others who have worked for the firm, including the current FSSA secretary, Michael Gargano. IBM was merely a place holder to provide cover for the primary purpose behind the contract. Not surprisingly, ACS' financial role with FSSA grew substantially after IBM was dumped.

Kelley has an interesting e-mail exchange between Roob's replacement, Anne Murphy, and the agency's spokesman, Marcus Barlow, in explaining IBM's theory of the case.

Steve McCormick, attorney for IBM, argued further that the state intentionally looked for a way to terminate the contract to get out of paying additional dollars to convert the contract to a new hybrid system.

“This is not about IBM’s performance,” he said. “This is all about saving the state from having to pay.” 

“This was a wrenching, difficult transition,” he said. “Everybody understood there were going to be problems.”

He noted that the tenor of the state’s relationship with IBM changed in January 2009 when Anne Murphy took over as secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. Within days, she fired off an email asking whether IBM might be in default.

McCormick also said a three-month corrective action plan was just a sham – a ruse to fire IBM when it was up in October 2009.

As proof, he showed an email between Murphy and then-department spokesman Marcus Barlow from the summer of 2009 where Murphy wanted Barlow to say negative things about IBM to the media. He warned it would be the first time to do so and said, “we just need to survive until October. Then we’re going to drop bombs ala Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

McCormick said of the 22 corrective-action-plan items, all were improved except the four controlled by subcontractor ACS, whose liaison was working in Murphy’s executive office. He reiterated several witness statements that suggested ACS was purposely not trying to improve so IBM would get fired.

The state retained ACS in the hybrid system.

“They engineered that to happen and then come in here to use the failure of the (corrective action plan) against us,” he said. “They terminated this contract because of their budget problems.”

Marcus Barlow is a friend. I'll have to check to see if he comments on the nuclear option e-mail on his Facebook page today.

Judge Dismisses 17 of State's Claims Against IBM

It's easy to forget a trial over the legal dispute between the state's Family and Social Services Administration over the canceled welfare privatization contract IBM has been going on for the past month because there has been very little coverage to date. The Star does have a brief story today mentioning that Judge David Dreyer has signed an order dismissing 17 of the state's claims against IBM following the conclusion of the state's case.

"Specifically, the state has introduced no credible evidence that IBM knowingly or intentionally made any false statements to the state or any other governmental entity," according to Dreyer's order.

Before the trial got underway last month, Judge Dreyer made key rulings that substantially affected the parties' potential liability if either lost the case. On one summary judgment motion in favor of IBM, Judge Dreyer ruled the company is entitled to up to $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees provided under the contract if it prevails in its claims against the state. Under Dreyer's earlier ruling, IBM both parties could be liable to the other in excess of $100 million if it prevails at the conclusion of the trial.

Supreme Court Rules Gov. Daniels Is Immune From Being Deposed In IBM Case

The Indiana Supreme Court wasted no time after hearing oral arguments this morning in reversing an order granted by Marion Co. Superior Court David Dreyer in the case involving the cancellation of IBM's billion-dollar contract with the state's Family & Social Services Administration to privatize welfare services requiring Gov. Mitch Daniels to be deposed. Late this afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a brief order reversing Judge Dreyer, holding that the immunity from civil arrest authorized to certain state officials under I.C. 34-29-2-1 extends to depositions in cases like this one even where the evidence shows the governor was intimately involved with the decisions related to IBM's contract. A later opinion will follow in due course explaining the Court's decision to reverse Judge Dreyer the order reads.

The month of February will be a month of big political decisions for the state's Supreme Court. The court will hear a dispute among Indiana lawmakers over whether the Indiana House of Representatives can impose fines for members' unexcused absences and deduct the fines from their pay. It will also be deciding whether Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg erred in reversing a unanimous decision of the state's Recount Commission that Charlie White was eligible to hold the office of secretary of state. The Supreme Court will get to decide whether White's Democratic opponent, Vop Osili, will become secretary of state or a person appointed by Gov. Daniels. White forfeited the office by law after a Hamilton Co. jury found him guilty of six felony counts earlier this month. It's highly unusual for the state's Supreme Court to have so many highly-charged political decisions on its plate in such a short period of time. It will provide an unprecedented opportunity for Chief Justice Randall Shepard to leave a lasting mark in shaping Indiana law on these critical political issues.

Judge Makes Key Rulings In Indiana's Lawsuit Against IBM

The Indiana Lawyer is reporting that Judge David Dreyer has made some key rulings in the costly litigation between IBM and the state of Indiana over the cancellation of the contract FSSA entered into with IBM for the privatization of the agency's welfare services. On one summary judgment motion in favor of IBM, Judge Dreyer ruled the company is entitled to up to $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees provided under the contract if it prevails in its claims against the state.

Judge Dreyer ruled against IBM's motion for summary judgment for $43 million in deferred fees it claims it is entitled to receive as a result of the termination, as well as $9.3 million in equipment the state retained that IBM says it purchased. In another favorable ruling for the state, Judge Dreyer denied the company's motion for summary judgment on its claim that its poor performance should be excused because of an economic downturn and flooding that occurred after the contract was signed.

The Indiana Lawyer observes that the state of Indiana could still recover up to $125 million in damages on its remaining claims against IBM if it prevails in the litigation. If IBM prevails, however, the state could owe IBM $100 million per a termination clause in the contract.

Judge Dreyer granted a motion by IBM's attorneys to depose Gov. Mitch Daniels as part of ongoing discovery in the case. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to hear the appeal directly. Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for February 13.

Judge Dreyer Orders Daniels To Give Deposition In Welfare Privatization Lawsuit

December has not been a good month for Gov. Mitch Daniels. First, his former IURC Chairman was indicted for official misconduct for his role in helping the agency's chief counsel land a job with Duke Energy. Earlier this week. a large contributor to his campaign, real estate developer John Bales, was indicted for defrauding the state in the leasing of commercial office space in Elkhart, Indiana for the Department of Child Services. Today, a Marion Co. Superior Court judge hearing a lawsuit between the state and IBM over the highly-criticized welfare privatization agreement Daniels cancelled after the state invested about $500 million into it has ordered the governor to sit for a deposition to be taken by IBM's lawyers, an unusual move. The Star has more:

The order by Judge David J. Dreyer says Daniels shall have to face questions from IBM’s attorneys within 60 days. It is limited to three hours at one sitting, “excluding reasonable breaks at the governor’s choice.”

Daniels canceled the $1 billion contract with IBM in October 2009 after numerous problems erupted with the privatization of welfare delivery services. Both the state and IBM then filed lawsuits against each other.

Can you imagine the distraction these issues would have become had Gov. Daniels followed the advice of many of his supporters and ran for president? I wouldn't be surprised if Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm being paid big bucks to represent the state in this lawsuit, doesn't appeal Judge Dreyer's order. Questions have been raised about the firm's role in the case given its obvious conflict of interest due to the fact that it represented IBM's partner, ACS, in the failed welfare privatization effort. Gov. Daniels insisted that the law firm handle the case despite concerns about the representation raised by the Attorney General's Office.

UPDATE: Barnes & Thornburg Attorney General Greg Zoeller late this afternoon announced that his office will appeal Judge Dreyer's ruling. From WTHR:

Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Friday a deposition of a sitting governor would set precedent that would have repercussions for all future governors, and he's obligated to challenge it in "the appropriate court."

It wasn't immediately clear what court that might be.

Peter Rusthoven, one of the private attorneys representing the state in the suit, says he believes no Indiana governor has ever been compelled to testify in court.

The Marion Superior Court order issued Friday said a law state attorneys say protects Daniels from testifying is "ambiguous."

E-Mails Showed Daniels Worried That Union Was Flooding Call Center With Calls To Sabotage Privatization Effort

IBM is engaged in contentious litigation with the state's Family & Social Services Administration over the decision made by the Daniels' administration to terminate the company's continued role in the privatization of Indiana's welfare services. Lawyers for IBM want to depose Gov. Mitch Daniels and his chief of staff, who they contend were key players in the decision-making process. Attorneys for the state contend state law exempts high-ranking officials, including the governor, from having to testify or otherwise directly participating in litigation involving state agencies. Surprisingly, discovery has shown more than 900 e-mails sent or received by Daniels related to the ongoing privatization effort. To emphasize the governor's close participation in the project, IBM lawyers cited one e-mail in which Daniels suggested a high volume of calls to the troubled call center may have been the work of a state employees union that opposed the privatization effort. Shortly after becoming governor, Daniels signed an executive order that ended the state's collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME that had been entered into by executive order by his Democratic predecessors. The union opposed the privatization move. The AP reports:

Gov. Mitch Daniels had such a keen interest in the state's $1.37 billion contract with IBM Corp. to automate welfare intake in Indiana that he asked an aide if an unexpectedly high number of telephone calls to a call center was a ploy by a state employees union, an IBM attorney said Monday.

IBM wants to depose Daniels soon because it's concerned he will announce he's running for president and would be too busy on the campaign trail to give a deposition, said IBM attorney Steven McCormick, who also wants to depose Daniels' chief of staff.


Daniels has said he won't decide on a White House run until after the General Assembly adjourns later this month . . .

The oral arguments lasting more than two hours revealed the level of Daniels' involvement in one of the biggest outsourcing contracts in state history. McCormick displayed on the IBM attorney's table four thick binders containing what he said were 930 email messages to and from Daniels that the state has surrendered so far.


"They're here to illustrate the cradle to grave, preconception to afterlife" level of Daniels involvement in the deal, McCormick said.

Daniels received detailed reports on the number of calls welfare clients made to a call center created with IBM technology, and after one report showed an unusually large number of calls, he asked an aide if it was a union ploy, McCormick said. McCormick didn't identify the union, but a state employees union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, vociferously opposed the outsourcing deal.

Another e-mail message instructed recipients "the governor was to be familiarized with all aspects of modernization," McCormick said, using the term the state used for the IBM project.

"The governor was not only the chief decider, he was the chief cook, he was the chief bottle washer," McCormick said.

"He made the key decisions all the way," McCormick said. "We're concerned that any delay will be met with, 'Well, now it's too late.'"

The story lays out the legal argument one of the state's attorneys, Peter Rusthoven of Barnes & Thornburg, makes to shield the governor from being deposed.

However, Peter Rusthoven, an attorney for the state, said a state law exempts certain high-level state officials including the governor, from court subpoenas and that other current and former state officials who are expected to testify will provide the same information Daniels and chief of staff Earl Goode were privy to . . .

Rusthoven said the level of Daniels' interest in the project did not trump a state law dating to the 1900s that protects the governor and certain other state officials from answering subpoenas. Rusthoven said it protects them from depositions as well, so well that there has never been an exception.


"It's never happened. The governor has never been called to testify," Rusthoven said.

IBM set out to depose Daniels on his knowledge of the deal before it had deposed anyone else in the case, Rusthoven said.

"There's been no attempt to get it by less intrusive means," Rusthoven said.

The state's ongoing litigation with IBM is a lose-lose proposition for Daniels. Critics questioned the deal from the beginning, even from within Daniels' own administration as I laid out in great detail Carl Moldthan's efforts to get Daniels to reconsider the ill-fated plan. Because the state retained the services of ACS after firing IBM, it raises the specter that IBM was nothing more than a placeholder for the Daniels administration to put ACS in charge of the deal. Daniels' former FSSA Secretary, Mitch Roob, who spearheaded the privatization effort is a former ACS executive. Critics believe it was Roob's intention all along to privatize in order to create a business opportunity for his former employer. Critics have also questioned the use of Barnes & Thornburg to represent the state's interests in the litigation. The firm has long represented ACS in its state and local lobbying efforts in Indiana. Indeed, the engagement letter with the firm acknowledged the firm's potential conflict of interest as ACS' attorney as well.

Daniels Administration's Attorneys Lose Fight To Exclude Thousands Of Documents From Discovery In Lawsuit Over Failed FSSA Privatization

I can't say that I'm surprised attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg, who are representing FSSA in a lawsuit with IBM over the failed welfare privatization effort despite their obvious conflict of interest in doing so, tried to exclude more than 11,000 documents from discovery under a claim of privilege. Fortunately, Judge David Dreyer wasn't impressed with the claim of privilege after personally reviewing the documents himself. With dollar signs no doubt flashing in his eyes (the state is paying him $475 an hour), Barnes & Thornburg's Peter Rusthoven says the state may appeal Dreyer's ruling. The Star's Carrie Ritchie explains:

A Marion Superior Court judge has ordered Indiana to turn over thousands of documents to help sort out two lawsuits over the state’s cancellation of a welfare modernization contract with IBM.


In an order entered this afternoon, Judge David Dreyer said documents the state claimed were privileged are not and should be turned over to IBM for review. They will not be released publicly.

Attorneys for the state are considering an appeal, which would temporarily stop the suits from moving forward, and will notify the court of their decision within 10 days, said Peter Rusthoven, who’s representing the state.

The documents include state employees’ e-mails, including some belonging to Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Daniels cancelled the 10-year, $1.37 billion contract in 2009 after only three years because of complaints about the automated system.

The state sued IBM in May to take back the $437 million it paid the company.

The most interesting aspect of Ritchie's story is the mention that some of the documents include e-mails authored by Gov. Daniels, who IBM is trying to depose in the matter. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be appropriate to insist the governor himself be questioned about an agency contractual dispute due to executive privilege, but a governor typically doesn't get directly involved involved in such matters; rather, he uses intermediaries to carry out his wishes to the extent he risks any involvement to keep his own hands clean. It is remarkable that the governor appears to have taken a more direct role in this matter.

IBM countersued, saying the state still owes the company about $100 million.


Dreyer, who reviewed more than 11,000 pages of documents privately before ruling, said in the order that he excluded “a relatively small number of individual e-mails or pages that are extraneous, personal or obviously unrelated communications.”

He also noted that he tried to be considerate of state employees’ privacy, and that he afforded the governor’s e-mails “particular scrutiny and due regard.”

Attorneys for IBM had criticized the state for trying to shield the documents.

“The state has delayed production of these documents since last fall and we hope we will now receive them promptly,” IBM spokesman Clint Roswell said today.

IBM also is trying to get a deposition from Daniels, and the state has requested a protective order to prevent the company from doing so.

The most outrageous aspect of this litigation is the fact that Barnes & Thornburg is being allowed to represent the state's interests. As I've previously pointed out, the firm has long represented ACS, the company that partnered with IBM on the welfare privatization agreement. ACS got to continue its role after the state opted to dump IBM. That ACS's services were retained was even more troubling because the company formerly employed former FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob, who initiated the privatization effort after leaving the company to work for Daniels. After Roob departed, the agency named another ACS consultant, Michael Gargano, as the agency's chief of staff and then later as the agency's Secretary. Gargano's wife, Ann Lathrop, also formerly worked at ACS with Roob. The agreement the state entered into with Barnes & Thornburg to handle the representation acknowledged the existence of the conflict of interest, but Daniels nonetheless insisted on using the firm. A top deputy in Daniels' office, Betsy Burdick, is the brother of the Barnes & Thornburg partner who signed the agreement with the state, Brian Burdick. It's notable that Burdick is a bond lawyer and not a litigator.