The head of USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has been the subject of two recent articles by Washington DC watchdog reporters who are questioning his objectivity when it comes to writing new rules for the livestock industry.

J. Dudley Butler, a Mississippi trial lawyer, was appointed by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in May of 2009 to serve as Administrator of GIPSA and immediately charged with coming up with a new rule to protect livestock producers against “unfair, fraudulent or retaliatory practices” as required by the 2008 Farm Bill and through existing authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act. That rule was announced in June 2010.

Last week, Big Government’s Capitol Confidential did a piece about Butler entitled “Fox Guarding the Hen House” which focuses on how the GIPSA head could profit from the rule he proposed once he returns to private practice as a trial attorney. The article notes a comment Butler made in a speech to the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), an organization that he helped to found, in August 2009 – after he was appointed to the USDA position. Here’s the quote, in context from Beef Magazine, highlighting the significant phrase. “When you have a term like ‘unfair, unreasonable or undue prejudice,’ that’s a plaintiff lawyer’s dream,” Butler says in the clip. “We can get in front of a jury with that. We won’t get thrown out on what we call summary judgment because that’s a jury question.”

The Hill picked up on the story this week, saying that some things don’t mix well, like “trial lawyers and regulation of the cattle industry.” The article notes that cattle producers have a reason to be concerned about Butler – “a regulatory boss with a background in suing the very industry he now regulates, and one can readily understand the apprehension among many cattlemen and beef producers.”

Both articles note that congressional leaders have already called Butler’s actions into question, but that the Obama administration appears to be unconcerned. It does seem to be a clear conflict of interest and one has to wonder why Butler was appointed to do this job in the first place.