abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapelocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewprofilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathtagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

US Judge orders suspended lawyer of Ecuadorian communities accusing Chevron of pollution to pay $3.4 million to co. for contempt of court

"Suspended lawyer ordered to pay $3.4M in attorney fees to Chevron as contempt sanction", 24 Jul 2019

A suspended lawyer who was found in contempt of court for stonewalling Chevron’s efforts to collect a money judgment against him has been ordered to pay $3.4 million in attorney fees to the oil company.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered New York lawyer Steven Donziger to pay the attorney fees for “intransigence” that blocked Chevron’s “considerable efforts” to get at the facts. Forbes covered Kaplan’s July 16 order.

Donziger told the ABA Journal that $3.4 million is the highest sanction in the history of New York courts. And it’s not his total liability—court fees, attorney fees and fines add up to about $10 million.

“I’m supposed to pay Chevron all of this money, and I work out of a two-bedroom apartment,” Donziger says. “It is a corporate and judicial scandal, and I am appealing it and I don’t believe it will stand.”

Donziger’s troubles began when Chevron filed a RICO suit against Donziger and his law firm in an attempt to block collection of a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian civil judgment against the company. Donziger had represented the Ecuadorian plaintiffs in their suit over alleged environmental damage by Chevron predecessor Texaco during oil exploration activities.

In a 2014 decision, Kaplan blocked enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron after finding that it was the product of bribery and fraud. A federal appeals court upheld the decision in 2016.

Story Timeline