Chevron Ecuador Case: Legal Observers Say Steven Donziger's Actions Are Criminal

While it may seem enough for the makers of the movie Crude to be judicially forced to have to be deposed by Chevron lawyers (after findings of outtakes from that movie which are damaging to the plaintiff's lawsuit against the American Oil giant) the climate is dark for the plaintiffs after revelations from a just released, little seen set of transcripts of outtakes from Crude.  

The transcripts make lead Chevron Ecuador lawsuit plaintiffs' lawyer Steven Donziger look like a thug, as one legal observer implied.  If Donziger's not The Godfather, then he certainly looks like one of the Don's henchmen.  Moreover, it proves this blogger's claim that Donziger is out for billions for himself.



To cut to the chase, Law.com presents Michael Goldhaber's article which has Donziger accused of possible criminal wrongdoing by American law case observers and based on two transcripts of Donziger's conversations that were outtakes from the movie and are here and here.

Goldhaber's explosive article is based on Donziger's expressed desire to intimidate the Ecuadorian judge (at the time Judge Nunez, who eventually stepped down from the case in 2009 after being tapped talking about a bribe) by way of forming an army of paid Ecuadorians to storm the court and make the judge think he would be killed.

In fact, on page 3 of the transcript document, that you can see with a click here, Donziger is quoted as agreeing that the judge would be either killed, or being led to think he may be killed, "which is just as good," Donziger is recorded as saying.

At no point does Donziger express remorse for a course of action that could have such a tragic end for an Ecuador legal official. Moreover, he does not seem to care that his move is out of proper American legal procedure. Instead, Law.com reports that Donziger says...

"We have concluded that we need to do more, politically, to control the court, to pressure the court. We believe they make decisions based on who they fear the most, not based on what the laws should dictate. So, what we want to do is to take over the court with a massive protest that we haven't done since the first day of the trial, back in October of 2003. Remember all those people on the street? ... It's a huge effort, it costs money. Not that much actually, but, few thousand dollars, to get everyone in for a day. ... But it — it's — it's a critically important moment, because we want to send a message to the court that, 'don't fuck with us anymore — not now, and not — not later, and never."

In the transcript, Donziger is also quoted as saying that he wants to spent $100,000 to have an initial march of 500 people followed by 20 or 30 who comprise a permanent watch. Law.com has this quote where Donziger wants to "follow ... the expert, to protect the court, to prevent corruption. Prevent corruption. We need people. It's a force, a political force that the judges can see...paid by us, for their time to protect the process from corruption." Donziger goes on: "This is Ecuador. ... You can say whatever you want, and at the end of the day, there's a thousand people around the courthouse, you're going to get what you want. Sorry, but it's true."

And this statement sums up Donziger's approach:

"You can solve anything with politics as long as the judges are intelligent enough to understand the politicS. It can be-they don't have to be intelligent enough to understand the law, just as long as they understand the politics."

Donziger Has Close Relationship With Ecuador AG 

Also, Donziger and AmazonWatch have claimed that Ecuador itself has nothing to do with the case, and is not a party to it, but this next statement indicates Donziger's intent to establish a very close relationship with the Ecuadorian government and the subsequent finding shows that he worked for the Ecuador Attorney General (AG):

We have a very, very big week coming up. We have to meet with--we are going to try to meet with the president, the new president of Ecuador who just got elected, the new Minister of PetroEcuador, the state oil company. We are going to try to meet with the new Minister of Energy, all the key people and explain to them the case.

The transcript, on page 15, has Donziger telling a Mr. Kohn (of the Kohn, Swift, and Graff law firm of which Donziger is a partner) that he, Donziger, has done work for the Ecuador Attorney General's Office, because that office, according to Steven Donziger himself doesn't "even know how to put out a press release, much less write a report. You know? So, we did the work for him."

That part of the transcript is not mentioned in the Michael Goldhaber's article, but is equally important to reveal just how closely Donziger worked with the Ecuadorian government.   Ecuador is indeed a party to the lawsuit against Chevron.

Legal Ethics Observers Accuse Donziger Of Criminal Wrongdoing

In the Law.com article, Goldhaber turns to legal ethics scholars to give their view of the legal significance of the case transcripts. Stanford Law School Plaintiff's Lawyer Expert Nora Freeman Engstrom observes that it's not clear that Donziger engaging in "serious professional or criminal wrongdoing," then adds, "although it's possible."

The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State University's Catherine Rogers, who specializes in international arbitration and professional ethics, was much harder, saying "If it turns out to be true they paid people to intimidate the court and make the judge fear for his life in a way that was designed to affect his judicial ruling, that's nowhere close to the line of what is ethical. That's thuggery, an interference with the administration of justice, and a gross violation of the ethical rules of every jurisdiction I am familiar with."

These are very serious examples of the flaunting of American legal ethics laws, if Chevron does pursue their fraud complaint to its logical conclusion, could lead to the disbarment of Steven Donziger. According to Rogers and Law.com, Donziger violated the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 3.5(a)(1), Rule 8.4, and 3.3(f)(4). Law.com reports..

Rule 3.5(a)(1), says a lawyer shall not seek "to influence a judge, official or employee of a tribunal by means prohibited by law." New York Rule 8.4 says it's misconduct to "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." And Rule 3.3(f)(4) says a lawyer shall not "engage in conduct intended to disrupt the tribunal."

Steven Donziger is in trouble.

Stay tuned for more.