Main

Great Eastern University did not have a lawyer as a voting member of its IACUC but Joseph Kleiner, an attorney on the school’s legal staff, attended all IACUC meetings as a non-voting observer. Additionally, when an IACUC hearing about protocol noncompliance or animal mistreatment occurred, Kleiner attended to help assure that any action taken by the committee was compliant with school policy and federal regulations.

When it was alleged that Dr. Louis Macdonald started a research project without IACUC approval, Macdonald was asked to meet with a subcommittee of the IACUC to explain his actions. Before the meeting occurred, Macdonald made it clear to the IACUC chairman that he was very annoyed with the allegation and the need for a meeting because he only added a few mice to an already approved protocol. Nevertheless, a meeting was scheduled and when Macdonald entered the meeting room and was introduced to attorney Kleiner, he wanted to know why a lawyer had to be present because he felt intimidated without having a lawyer of his own being there. The IACUC chairman explained that Kleiner was there to assure that Macdonald’s rights were being protected and certainly not to intimidate him. But Macdonald contended that Kleiner was employed by the school’s administration to represent and protect the school, not him, and he wanted to have his own lawyer present before any further discussion occurred. The chairman said that was not the policy of the school or the IACUC, that there had not been any complaints in past cases about Kleiner being there, and it was important for the meeting to progress.

What do you think? Should Dr. Macdonald be allowed to have his own legal representation as a matter of due process, or can Kleiner adequately represent both the school and Macdonald?