Iowa lawyer reprimanded for representing pipeline landowners

Overview of the Disciplinary Action Against Brian Jorde

The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board has taken disciplinary action against Brian Jorde, an attorney known for representing landowners in legal disputes involving pipelines. Jorde is associated with the Domina Law Group based in Omaha and has represented numerous landowners, including those in Iowa and South Dakota who opposed the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project.

The board's reprimand highlights that Jorde presented information during proceedings related to permit applications for a carbon sequestration project that was deemed "misleading or deceptive." This issue arose during evaluations by both the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) and the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission regarding the construction of a pipeline that would transport liquid carbon dioxide across several states.

Representation of Landowners in Pipeline Proceedings

Jorde represented 155 landowners in the IUC’s evaluation of Summit Carbon Solutions’ permit application. The pipeline project would span over 600 miles, crossing through Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and ending in underground storage formations in North Dakota. During the Iowa proceedings, Jorde submitted pretrial testimony on behalf of landowners, including Nancy Dugan.

Dugan had also submitted her own information during the IUC proceedings. According to the reprimand, she had communicated with Jorde via email. In addition, Jorde sought and received Dugan’s permission to submit some of her research from the IUC dockets into the South Dakota hearings.

However, Jorde's filings included introductory written testimony that Dugan later claimed were not statements she would have chosen to submit. The reprimand notes that Dugan did not approve these written statements. While the South Dakota filing had an electronic signature, the IUC document had not been signed by Dugan.

Concerns Raised by Nancy Dugan

In an email to Jorde, Dugan clarified that she was not a landowner and expressed concerns about being called to testify. Jorde responded by stating that the IUC filing must have been an inadvertent mistake made by his staff, who filed multiple pretrial testimonies. He assured Dugan that he did not intend to call her to testify.

Subsequent emails saw Dugan request that Jorde retract the statements or allow her to submit a revised version of her responses. She later learned that the same statements had been submitted in South Dakota and again asked Jorde to refrain from filing any affidavits on her behalf unless they were something she had written or reviewed.

In April 2024, months after the IUC hearing, Dugan raised the issue again with Jorde. Jorde stated that the pretrial testimony was not used in the hearing and therefore not part of the record. He claimed the filing was not "material" information to the proceedings. Jorde even suggested that requesting its deletion could draw more attention to the issue than necessary.

Response from the Disciplinary Board

According to the advisory board, Jorde contacted the IUC about removing the testimony but did not reach out to the South Dakota commission regarding the matter. The written testimony attributed to Dugan was not used in either state's commission hearings.

Dugan brought the issue to the IUC council and to Nebraska attorney disciplinary authorities, which led to the matter being referred to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board.

The board found the actions in South Dakota to be "deceptive" and expressed concern that Jorde and his staff did not inform Dugan about the additional pages filed beyond the research she had consented to. On the Iowa document, the board found it troubling that Jorde did not withdraw the filing upon learning it had been inadvertently submitted.

While the board acknowledged that the severity of the misrepresentation issues did not meet the level of previously prosecuted matters, it emphasized that the duty of candor is a fundamental obligation for lawyers.

Final Outcome and Jorde’s Response

Jorde did not file any exceptions to the reprimand within the allowed 30-day period, 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 on.

There is no further disciplinary action 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. The counties sought an en banc rehearing following a ruling in favor of Summit in June. One judge dissented, arguing that the county ordinances should not be preempted by the Pipeline Safety Act.

An en banc rehearing would have required all 11 active judges at the appeals court to review the case. However, the order denying the petition did not provide additional details or opinions from the court.