As a legal ethics professor, I note that Steven Donziger was an officer of the court who grossly abused his position. Apart from his participation in the Ecuadorean fraud, he repeatedly and willfully disregarded American court orders over a period of years. He has never, to my knowledge, expressed remorse for his conduct.
Full Answer
Steven Donziger, the US indigenous rights campaigner and lawyer who spent decades battling the energy firm Chevron over pollution in the Ecuadorian rainforest, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on Friday for criminal contempt charges arising from a lawsuit brought by the oil giant.
The UN experts’ opinion said the US breached international law by putting Donziger under house arrest for about four times the maximum sentence of six months that he has now received in his contempt case.
Donziger was charged in August 2019 with criminal contempt and placed under home detention to address concerns of flight risk. Five months ago, the judge found him guilty for “repeatedly and willfully” defying court orders.
But Steven Donziger, whom (as this column has exhaustively detailed) a United States federal court found to have bribed an Ecuadorean judge and ghost-written his $9.5 billion ruling against Chevron Corp. in the infamous Lago Agrio pollution case, is no Michael Milken. Donziger’s license to practice law has been revoked in New York, his home state.
Donziger was found guilty in July of six counts of criminal contempt of court for withholding evidence in a long, complex legal fight with Chevron, which claims that Mr. Donziger fabricated evidence in the 1990s to win a lawsuit he filed against the oil giant on behalf of 30,000 Indigenous people in Ecuador.
Donziger was found responsible for forging evidence and engaging in corrupt practices to win a lawsuit against the well-known oil company Chevron. Evidence showed that the lawyer engaged in bribery to get the Ecuadorian courts to render a verdict in his favor.
Donziger is the first attorney in U.S. history to have been charged with criminal contempt while appealing a civil discovery order.
Meanwhile, though, its counterattack back in New York was underway. Chevron charged that Donziger and his allies had committed bribery and fraud in Ecuador to win their case, and it used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which had been designed to prosecute the Mafia.
In 2011, Chevron filed a civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) suit against Donziger in New York City, accusing him of bribing an Ecuadorean judge, ghostwriting the damages judgment against it, and "fixing" scientific studies.
Donziger was sentenced to six months in federal prison for the misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt of court on Oct.
Donziger was charged in August 2019 with six counts of criminal contempt for, among other things, failing to turn over his computer, phones and other electronic devices. That same month, Preska ordered that he be detained at home, finding a risk that he may flee the country to avoid his prosecution.
Michael Krauss , an emeritus professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School of George Mason University, said that Donziger's confinement was "unprecedented.". But he added that a strategy of delays on the part of his attorneys was "in part responsible for that.".
Donziger claims that the special prosecutor appointed by Judge Kaplan to prosecute Donziger (the local U.S. Attorney’s office had declined to act because “the matter would require resources that we do not readily have available”) is in violation of the ruling in Arthrex.
Donziger’s allies have dwindled in number, likely both because of the avalanche of facts against him and because he can no longer credibly offer shares of an eventual contingent fee as consideration for support . The Embassy of Ecuador in Washington itself characterized the judgment against Chevron as “fraudulent.”.
It said its members decided to do this after Donziger failed to explain what he had done with $20 million raised in their name. “Donziger is not authorized to represent them or raise money,”, UDAPT claimed, “and if he does, the communities will disavow any statement or commitment made on their behalf.”.
Donziger has bemoaned that he would almost certainly be convicted of the criminal contempt charge. That charge is the result of his continued and admitted disobedience of court orders in the civil proceeding before United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan to timely relinquish his contingent fee in the fraudulent Ecuadorian judgment, to stop selling interest in that fee, to turn over his computer, phones and other electronic devices, and to surrender his passport. Donziger has recently petitioned for dismissal of the criminal contempt charge. He invokes this term’s Supreme Court Arthrex ruling. In Arthrex, Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) issued decisions that determined the property rights of citizens. A divided Supreme Court held that that final determinations of rights may only be made by people nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It thus held that the Patent Act should be interpreted to give the Patent and Trademark Office Director discretion to review and overrule decisions by APJs. Donziger claims that the special prosecutor appointed by Judge Kaplan to prosecute Donziger (the local U.S. Attorney’s office had declined to act because “the matter would require resources that we do not readily have available”) is in violation of the ruling in Arthrex. Though some have attacked the constitutionality of special prosecutors, I don’t think Arthrex provides them with additional ammunition. The appointment of a special prosecutor is specifically provided by Federal Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. Unlike the APJs in Arthrex, the special prosecutor in this case cannot decide Donziger’s rights — she can only argue for an outcome that will be determined by United States District Judge Preska. And all parties agree that Judge Preska is duly appointed under the Constitution.