The whole thing also bugs me on an intuitive level, but I'm not sure it is a 
legal conflict of interest.  The Northern cases he is involved in are not 
really  "GISB matters."  There are certainly issues like the 637 compliance 
issue that involve GISB standards, however.  GISB is a freestanding entitity 
and his representation does not equate to representation of Enron so he could 
claim that his only client interest to worry about is GISB itself.  As long 
as he does not take positions in Northern cases that are inconsistent with 
what GISB wants, he's technically OK.  I suspect he'd argue that his work in 
the Northern docket is completely consistent with GISB's objective of 
achieving world domination.  This was my from the hip analysis when Jay first 
showed up in our cases, so I may have missed something.  For example, I'm not 
really clear on GISB's structure.  Can we argue that it is not a real stand 
alone entity but rather  a "front" for a cooperative group of companies that 
includes Enron?  If so, we might have a real conflict.  Thanks. DF




Shelley Corman
05/09/2000 09:12 AM
To: Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Supplemental NDG Comments in RM98-10

I was impressed that NDG filed revised comments in RM98-10 correcting their 
earlier mis-statements that GISB had ratified imbalance netting and trading 
standards.  The revised 2 page NDG filing states that GISB has not yet 
ratified the standards.
Then I noticed who signed the pleading -- Jay Costan.  I guess he ought to 
know, as he is GISB general counsel!

Does anyone else find this to be a conflict of interest for him to be GISB 
general counsel & then be counsel of a customer taking a position against a 
pipeline in a GISB matter.  I like Jay a lot, but I'm thinking of clarifying 
our understanding of his outside representation while he is GISB general 
counsel.