Legal News

Anthrax Aftermath: Hatfill?s in the Clear, But Whither Toni Locy?

By Dan Slater

Anthrax and the Bruce Ivins suicide story had long faded by Labor Day. But we must reach even deeper into the news dustbin to recall the showdown between Dr. Steven Hatfill — the former army scientist whom the government called a “person of interest” in the 2001 anthrax attacks but then officially excluded from the investigation — and Toni Locy, the former USA Today reporter whom D.C. District Court Judge Reggie Walton held in contempt for refusing to name her sources for a story she wrote about Hatfill’s possible role in the attacks.

Now that the DOJ has settled with Hatfill for $5.8 million and excluded him from the investigation, what happens to Locy’s contempt order? At the time of the DOJ’s June settlement with Hatfill, Locy told the AP, “I hope this means that this ordeal is over and that I can get on with my life. . . but I don’t know if my appeal is moot or if the contempt order against me will be lifted because I don’t have anything at this point from the Court of Appeals or Judge Walton that says I’m in the clear.”

Locy may be in the clear vis-a-vis the contempt order, but a big lawyers’ bill may still be coming her way. The Legal Times’ Tony Mauro reports that lawyers for Hatfill returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week to seeking dismissal of Locy’s appeal of the contempt citation. In Hatfill’s motion, his lawyer, Christopher Wright reportedly says that once the district court regains jurisdiction, Hatfill will seek attorney fees from Locy. No amount was mentioned, but Locy told Legal Times she anticipates that the lawyer bills will be “far greater than the fines I faced under Judge Walton’s contempt finding.” She adds, “A multimillion dollar settlement with the government apparently is not enough for them.”

Wright’s partner, Mark Grannis told Legal Times: “In response to hysterical complaints about a constitutional crisis, I would just say that it is quite often the case that the party who goes to the extra trouble gets attorney fees.” Grannis also said that, unlike with the fines for contempt, “if other persons want to chip in” to help Locy pay for the attorney fees, “I can’t imagine that we would oppose that.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 16, 2008 (boomark / email).