Robert B. Troutman, Jr. v. Southern Railway Company
441 F.2d 586 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for services is not void as against public policy if it merely contemplates using influence to gain access to a public official to present the merits of a case. However, a contract that contemplates using personal or political influence to secure a decision irrespective of the merits is illegal and unenforceable.
Facts:
- In 1963, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) ordered Southern Railway Company to increase its grain shipment rates, which Southern believed would cause it significant financial harm.
- A Southern vice president, Sim S. Wilbanks, hired attorney Robert B. Troutman, Jr. to help challenge the ICC order.
- Wilbanks hired Troutman specifically because he was known to be a personal friend and political ally of then-President John F. Kennedy.
- Wilbanks asked Troutman to persuade the President and the Department of Justice to oppose the ICC's position in a lawsuit Southern was filing.
- Troutman met with President Kennedy, his counsel, and officials at the Department of Justice to present the merits of Southern's case against the rate increase.
- Following Troutman's advocacy, the Department of Justice sided with Southern and opposed the ICC in the lawsuit, which resulted in the ICC's order being struck down.
- Southern initially agreed to compensate Troutman through a joint real estate development deal involving air rights, but this arrangement never materialized.
- When the real estate deal failed, Troutman demanded monetary payment for his services, which Southern refused to pay.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert B. Troutman, Jr. filed a diversity action against the Southern Railway Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to recover the value of legal services.
- Southern moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied for the claim related to the grain rate case.
- The case proceeded to trial, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of Troutman in the amount of $175,000.
- The district court denied Southern's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
- Southern Railway Company, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Troutman as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contract for legal services unenforceable as a violation of public policy where the attorney agrees to use his personal connections to gain access to a public official and persuade the official based on the merits of the client's case?
Opinions:
Majority - Wisdom, Circuit Judge
No. A contract for legal services is not unenforceable as a violation of public policy when it involves using personal connections to gain access to a public official to persuade them based on the merits of the case. The court distinguished between using influence to gain an audience and present a case on its merits—which is legal and protected by the First Amendment right to petition—and using 'personal influence' and 'sinister means' to sway a decision regardless of its merits, which is illegal. The burden of proving a contract's illegality rests on the party asserting it. Here, testimony from Troutman and government officials indicated that Troutman was hired only to gain an audience and argue the merits. Therefore, the jury had substantial evidence to conclude that the contract was for legitimate legal advocacy and was not a contract for the improper use of political influence, making it valid and enforceable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between permissible governmental lobbying and illegal influence-peddling. It establishes that hiring an attorney for their political connections is not, by itself, against public policy, provided the objective is to secure a fair hearing on the merits of the case. The decision reinforces that the nature of such an agreement is a question of fact for the jury. This precedent provides a crucial framework for attorneys and lobbyists, defining the boundaries of legitimate, compensable advocacy when engaging with public officials.
Unlock the full brief for Robert B. Troutman, Jr. v. Southern Railway Company