Iowa board reprimands lawyer in pipeline landowner cases

Legal Reprimand for Attorney Representing Landowners in Pipeline Disputes

Brian Jorde, an attorney known for representing numerous landowners in legal disputes against pipeline projects, has faced a public reprimand from the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board. Jorde, who is part of the Domina Law Group based in Omaha, has been involved in several high-profile cases, including those concerning the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. This reprimand stems from allegations that he presented misleading or deceptive information during utility commission proceedings related to the carbon sequestration project.

Jorde was representing 155 landowners in the Iowa Utilities Commission’s evaluation of Summit Carbon Solutions’ permit application. The proposed pipeline would span over 600 miles, transporting liquid carbon dioxide from biorefineries across Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota, ultimately storing it in underground rock formations in North Dakota.

During the Iowa permit proceedings, Jorde filed pretrial testimony on behalf of landowners, including Nancy Dugan. Dugan had submitted her own information to the IUC and had communicated with Jorde via email. According to the disciplinary board's findings, Jorde requested and received Dugan’s permission to submit some of her research to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission hearings.

However, the filings included written testimony that Dugan later claimed were not statements she would have chosen to submit. The reprimand noted that Dugan did not approve these written statements. While the South Dakota filing contained an electronic signature, the Iowa document lacked Dugan’s signature.

Dugan clarified in an email to Jorde that she was not a landowner and was concerned about being called to testify. Jorde responded by stating that the filing might have been an inadvertent error by his staff. He assured Dugan that he did not intend to call her to testify. Despite this, Dugan continued to request that Jorde retract the statements or allow her to submit a revised version.

In April 2024, Dugan raised the issue again, asking Jorde to rescind the statements from the IUC record. Jorde claimed that the pretrial testimony was not used in the hearing and therefore not part of the record. He also stated that the filing was not “material” information to the proceedings. However, the advisory board found Jorde’s actions troubling, particularly because he did not withdraw the filing upon learning of the mistake.

The board concluded that while the misrepresentation issues did not rise to the level of previously prosecuted matters, the duty of candor is a fundamental obligation for lawyers. Jorde did not file any exceptions to the reprimand within the allowed 30-day window, making the reprimand final and public.

In a message to Iowa Capital Dispatch, Jorde stated that his focus remains on his clients. He chose not to contest the matter and has moved forward. There are no further disciplinary actions beyond the public reprimand.

Federal Appeals Court Denies Rehearing Request

A federal appeals court recently denied a rehearing petition from Iowa counties involved in a case against Summit Carbon Solutions regarding the ability of local governments to enact pipeline ordinances. Shelby and Story County supervisors had petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for an en banc rehearing following a ruling in favor of Summit in June.

One judge dissented in the majority opinion that all of the ordinances set by the counties would be preempted by the Pipeline Safety Act. An en banc rehearing, which would involve all 11 active judges at the appeals court, was requested by the counties and supported by amicus briefs from several states and organizations.

The order denying the petition for rehearing did not include additional information or opinions from the judges. The case continues to highlight the complex legal challenges surrounding pipeline projects and local governance.