McDermott ordered to pay to end feud

After a decade-long court battle, a federal judge yesterday ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John A. Boehner more than $1 million in legal costs in a bitter feud between the two lawmakers over an illegally recorded 1996 telephone call.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan in Washington ordered Mr. McDermott, Washington Democrat, to pay $1.05 million in attorney’s fees and $40,000 in interest to end a dispute that began when a call between Republican leaders concerning an ethics case against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich was secretly taped and released to the news media.

Mr. Boehner, who offered on numerous occasions to settle the case if Mr. McDermott admitted he was wrong, apologized to the House and made a $10,000 donation to a charity, yesterday said Mr. McDermott “broke the law, and as a result, he shattered the bonds of trust between our institution and the men and women we represent in the halls of Congress.”

“I remained committed to this case in order to begin restoring those bonds, and to uphold the belief that no one — not even a member of Congress — is above the law,” said Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

But Mr. McDermott, who described the court fight as “a long and costly battle,” said the judgment was “a small price to pay in defense of so fundamental a principle, and freedom, as the First Amendment.” He said the lengthy legal challenge had strengthened the country’s First Amendment guarantees.

“The First Amendment is stronger today, and shielded by new case law that will buttress its capacity to protect the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance long into the future,” he said. “Knowing this, I am proud of my role in defense of the First Amendment.”

Mr. McDermott said he would not appeal the decision.

Mr. McDermott created a legal defense fund some years ago and reports filed with the House show that he collected about $100,000 for it last year. He also has more than $600,000 in his campaign account. He already has paid $60,000 in fines and damages and nearly $600,000 in fees to his own lawyers.

In December, Mr. Boehner’s case against Mr. McDermott was strengthened when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia that Mr. McDermott had wrongfully leaked the tape to two newspapers, contrary to House rules, and that Mr. Boehner could sue him for damages.

The legal fight began more than a decade ago amid an ethics challenge involving a Florida couple’s illegal taping of a cell-phone conversation between Mr. Gingrich and other House Republican leaders, including Mr. Boehner. The tape found its way into the New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution via Mr. McDermott, who then was the top Democrat on the House ethics panel investigating Mr. Gingrich and pushing for a special prosecutor in the case.

The D.C. appeals court had ruled 5-4 that Mr. McDermott’s disclosure to reporters of the recorded conversation violated the federal wiretapping statute. A month later, the court found Mr. McDermott liable for $10,000 in statutory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, ordering that Mr. Boehner also recover “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

The appeals court said Mr. McDermott’s offense was especially egregious since he was the top Democrat on the House ethics committee at the time.

“When Representative McDermott became a member of the ethics committee, he voluntarily accepted a duty of confidentiality that covered his receipt and handling of the illegal recording,” wrote the five-judge majority. “He therefore had no First Amendment right to disclose the tape to the media.”

House ethics panel members are barred by congressional rules from disclosing “any evidence relating to an investigation” without the panel’s agreement.

Mr. Gingrich was heard on the December 1996 call by John and Alice Martin over a police radio scanner. In the call, he told Mr. Boehner and other Republican leaders how to react to the ethics accusations. The Martins gave the tape to Mr. McDermott in January 1997, and both newspapers published articles based on the tapes shortly afterward. The Martins pleaded guilty to violating a federal anti-wiretapping law and were fined $500 each.

Last December, the House ethics committee decided not to take action against Mr. McDermott, despite finding he broke ethics rules by letting reporters listen to the taped call.