Cooley / Musk Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
joanneofarc

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:57 pm

Cooley / Musk

Post by joanneofarc » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:52 pm

WSJ: Elon Musk’s Tesla Asked Law Firm to Fire Associate Hired From SEC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks ... _lead_pos3

According to this story, Musk demanded that a Cooley associate--who was not working on any Tesla matters--be fired because this associate had previously interviewed Musk when working at the SEC. Cooley has not fired the associate, and Tesla appears to be in the process of moving its business away from the firm.

Has anyone heard of something like this happening elsewhere?

Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Ultramar vistas » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:59 pm

https://archive.md/slotB

Archive link for anyone paywalled.

Great move by Cooley - clearly the firing would have leaked, and they would have looked absolutely terrible; this show of solidarity is pretty great.

ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:04 am

I don't say this to take credit away (and don't think it does), but this actually seems like an easy, maybe even mandatory response from Cooley.

Once you allow a client to establish that level of control over the firm, it's just a matter of time before the client starts insisting on unethical shit, at which point you're required to end the representation anyways. And knowing Musk, the "matter of time" would be around three seconds (or more likely, years ago).

If I'm a firm GC, the client is basically dead to me the moment they ask for something this ridiculous. That is a steep slippery slope.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:33 am

joanneofarc wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:52 pm
WSJ: Elon Musk’s Tesla Asked Law Firm to Fire Associate Hired From SEC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks ... _lead_pos3

According to this story, Musk demanded that a Cooley associate--who was not working on any Tesla matters--be fired because this associate had previously interviewed Musk when working at the SEC. Cooley has not fired the associate, and Tesla appears to be in the process of moving its business away from the firm.

Has anyone heard of something like this happening elsewhere?
Yes. My understanding is that, maybe a decade ago, a number of associates who had worked pro bono, in law school, with Steven Donziger on the Ecuadorian suit against Chevron for pollution in the Amazon were quietly shown the door. (Quietly because they were made to sign NDAs to get their severance.) This happened at Chevron’s request in the wake of the 2011 damages verdict from an Ecuadorean court. (I think the quantum was $18 billion initially, then reduced to $9.5 billion.)

Some firms made the axings in anticipation of mergers with firms that had strong Chevron links. Others (including some magic circle firms) just seem to have done so at Chevron’s request.

I know this from a few people to whom this either happened or who saw it happening. Chevron’s entire response to the verdict has been scorched earth (and there’s something a little unseemly about an American company losing a suit abroad and then running to NY judges to claim fraud, though I understand the plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels). It’s still going now:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/litigation ... 1619975500 Is a decent overview.

Compared with the tribespeople’s suffering these aren’t huge issues. Still seems very dodgy.

temp69420

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:47 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by temp69420 » Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:20 am

Ultramar vistas wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:59 pm
https://archive.md/slotB

Archive link for anyone paywalled.

Great move by Cooley - clearly the firing would have leaked, and they would have looked absolutely terrible; this show of solidarity is pretty great.
But also good for Cooley for leaking the story themselves.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:33 am
joanneofarc wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:52 pm
WSJ: Elon Musk’s Tesla Asked Law Firm to Fire Associate Hired From SEC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks ... _lead_pos3

According to this story, Musk demanded that a Cooley associate--who was not working on any Tesla matters--be fired because this associate had previously interviewed Musk when working at the SEC. Cooley has not fired the associate, and Tesla appears to be in the process of moving its business away from the firm.

Has anyone heard of something like this happening elsewhere?
Yes. My understanding is that, maybe a decade ago, a number of associates who had worked pro bono, in law school, with Steven Donziger on the Ecuadorian suit against Chevron for pollution in the Amazon were quietly shown the door. (Quietly because they were made to sign NDAs to get their severance.) This happened at Chevron’s request in the wake of the 2011 damages verdict from an Ecuadorean court. (I think the quantum was $18 billion initially, then reduced to $9.5 billion.)

Some firms made the axings in anticipation of mergers with firms that had strong Chevron links. Others (including some magic circle firms) just seem to have done so at Chevron’s request.

I know this from a few people to whom this either happened or who saw it happening. Chevron’s entire response to the verdict has been scorched earth (and there’s something a little unseemly about an American company losing a suit abroad and then running to NY judges to claim fraud, though I understand the plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels). It’s still going now:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/litigation ... 1619975500 Is a decent overview.

Compared with the tribespeople’s suffering these aren’t huge issues. Still seems very dodgy.
Notably absent from your narrative are Donziger's well-established fraud to obtain a sham foreign judgment, bribing of judges, and unjustifiable refusal to comply with lawful court orders. A for effort in trying to gloss over all that by acknowledging that "plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels."

When those facts are considered, it's pretty obvious that the situation you suggest (which, I should add, seems to based on speculation) is not comparable to what happened here. What untoward activity is the SEC lawyer supposed to have been involved with, exactly?

I would also be leery of continuing to employ someone who was even tangentially involved in a massive, long running fraud like Donziger's. It opens up the question of what they knew and when they knew it, and the safer, cleaner option is to just cut ties.

And I'll save you the trouble, since I'm sure it's coming - I'm a Chevron shill, I must hate the indigenous people of Ecuador, yadda yadda. It's all very tired at this point. But here's the thing - I can dislike oil companies and think that their activities are destroying the planet, and still acknowledge that Donziger is a huge fraud that suckered (and continues to sucker) a bunch of bleeding hearts into his get-rich-quick scheme.

This is all a massive aside, but I'm semi-surprised to see people falling for it even here. I thought most people here would know better.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:42 am

Yeah Donziger is no hero, whatever your views on chevron are. Plus there's a huge difference between pro bono work done while working at a firm that conflicts with the firm's clients' interests, and doing your job at a regulatory agency before bringing your knowledge of how the other side thinks to the benefit of the firm's clients.

Edit - missed that the chevron kids had done it in law school, not in the firm. Agree that's bad too and not that difficult from musk. Law students get a variety of experiences and that's a good thing. Firms should never punish employees for previous experience unless there's ethical issues. Seems very unlikely that students had reason to know that Donziger was fishy. My bad for missing this key fact.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Ultramar vistas » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:58 am

ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:34 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:33 am
joanneofarc wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:52 pm
WSJ: Elon Musk’s Tesla Asked Law Firm to Fire Associate Hired From SEC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks ... _lead_pos3

According to this story, Musk demanded that a Cooley associate--who was not working on any Tesla matters--be fired because this associate had previously interviewed Musk when working at the SEC. Cooley has not fired the associate, and Tesla appears to be in the process of moving its business away from the firm.

Has anyone heard of something like this happening elsewhere?
Yes. My understanding is that, maybe a decade ago, a number of associates who had worked pro bono, in law school, with Steven Donziger on the Ecuadorian suit against Chevron for pollution in the Amazon were quietly shown the door. (Quietly because they were made to sign NDAs to get their severance.) This happened at Chevron’s request in the wake of the 2011 damages verdict from an Ecuadorean court. (I think the quantum was $18 billion initially, then reduced to $9.5 billion.)

Some firms made the axings in anticipation of mergers with firms that had strong Chevron links. Others (including some magic circle firms) just seem to have done so at Chevron’s request.

I know this from a few people to whom this either happened or who saw it happening. Chevron’s entire response to the verdict has been scorched earth (and there’s something a little unseemly about an American company losing a suit abroad and then running to NY judges to claim fraud, though I understand the plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels). It’s still going now:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/litigation ... 1619975500 Is a decent overview.

Compared with the tribespeople’s suffering these aren’t huge issues. Still seems very dodgy.
Notably absent from your narrative are Donziger's well-established fraud to obtain a sham foreign judgment, bribing of judges, and unjustifiable refusal to comply with lawful court orders. A for effort in trying to gloss over all that by acknowledging that "plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels."

When those facts are considered, it's pretty obvious that the situation you suggest (which, I should add, seems to based on speculation) is not comparable to what happened here. What untoward activity is the SEC lawyer supposed to have been involved with, exactly?

I would also be leery of continuing to employ someone who was even tangentially involved in a massive, long running fraud like Donziger's. It opens up the question of what they knew and when they knew it, and the safer, cleaner option is to just cut ties.

And I'll save you the trouble, since I'm sure it's coming - I'm a Chevron shill, I must hate the indigenous people of Ecuador, yadda yadda. It's all very tired at this point. But here's the thing - I can dislike oil companies and think that their activities are destroying the planet, and still acknowledge that Donziger is a huge fraud that suckered (and continues to sucker) a bunch of bleeding hearts into his get-rich-quick scheme.

This is all a massive aside, but I'm semi-surprised to see people falling for it even here. I thought most people here would know better.
Even if all of the above is true (and I know nothing about it), isn’t punishing - like, literally having them fired - the people who got sucked into some bleeding heart pro Bono work while they were in law school incredibly sociopathic? Whether or not they were exercising the best critical thinking skills, holding law school interns responsible for the activities of the actual attorneys responsible for the work seems real unfair. I know when I was in law school and worked on various public defense adjacent projects, our clinic relied massively on our supervisors for ethics and context - appropriately, given that we were practicing under their bar admission.

ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:40 pm

Ultramar vistas wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:58 am
ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:34 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:33 am
joanneofarc wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:52 pm
WSJ: Elon Musk’s Tesla Asked Law Firm to Fire Associate Hired From SEC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks ... _lead_pos3

According to this story, Musk demanded that a Cooley associate--who was not working on any Tesla matters--be fired because this associate had previously interviewed Musk when working at the SEC. Cooley has not fired the associate, and Tesla appears to be in the process of moving its business away from the firm.

Has anyone heard of something like this happening elsewhere?
Yes. My understanding is that, maybe a decade ago, a number of associates who had worked pro bono, in law school, with Steven Donziger on the Ecuadorian suit against Chevron for pollution in the Amazon were quietly shown the door. (Quietly because they were made to sign NDAs to get their severance.) This happened at Chevron’s request in the wake of the 2011 damages verdict from an Ecuadorean court. (I think the quantum was $18 billion initially, then reduced to $9.5 billion.)

Some firms made the axings in anticipation of mergers with firms that had strong Chevron links. Others (including some magic circle firms) just seem to have done so at Chevron’s request.

I know this from a few people to whom this either happened or who saw it happening. Chevron’s entire response to the verdict has been scorched earth (and there’s something a little unseemly about an American company losing a suit abroad and then running to NY judges to claim fraud, though I understand the plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels). It’s still going now:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/litigation ... 1619975500 Is a decent overview.

Compared with the tribespeople’s suffering these aren’t huge issues. Still seems very dodgy.
Notably absent from your narrative are Donziger's well-established fraud to obtain a sham foreign judgment, bribing of judges, and unjustifiable refusal to comply with lawful court orders. A for effort in trying to gloss over all that by acknowledging that "plaintiffs’ legal team aren’t angels."

When those facts are considered, it's pretty obvious that the situation you suggest (which, I should add, seems to based on speculation) is not comparable to what happened here. What untoward activity is the SEC lawyer supposed to have been involved with, exactly?

I would also be leery of continuing to employ someone who was even tangentially involved in a massive, long running fraud like Donziger's. It opens up the question of what they knew and when they knew it, and the safer, cleaner option is to just cut ties.

And I'll save you the trouble, since I'm sure it's coming - I'm a Chevron shill, I must hate the indigenous people of Ecuador, yadda yadda. It's all very tired at this point. But here's the thing - I can dislike oil companies and think that their activities are destroying the planet, and still acknowledge that Donziger is a huge fraud that suckered (and continues to sucker) a bunch of bleeding hearts into his get-rich-quick scheme.

This is all a massive aside, but I'm semi-surprised to see people falling for it even here. I thought most people here would know better.
Even if all of the above is true (and I know nothing about it), isn’t punishing - like, literally having them fired - the people who got sucked into some bleeding heart pro Bono work while they were in law school incredibly sociopathic? Whether or not they were exercising the best critical thinking skills, holding law school interns responsible for the activities of the actual attorneys responsible for the work seems real unfair. I know when I was in law school and worked on various public defense adjacent projects, our clinic relied massively on our supervisors for ethics and context - appropriately, given that we were practicing under their bar admission.
Sure, fair enough. I was being hardheaded because the Donziger shit is so annoying. The guy is a complete slimeball and seeing all the well-intentioned people he's duped into carrying his water and thinking he's some persecuted hero upsets me. Especially because he's nonstop accusing the US judges involved of corruption for daring to hold him to account for being actually corrupt.

I don't know about borderline sociopathic, but I agree that it's overkill to go after the law students if they didn't know what was really going on, assuming that that's what actually happened.

I would be very curious to hear from one of those former students to get their thoughts on the whole situation now.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Ultramar vistas » Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:02 pm

So I just read the Wikipedia article for Donziger (I know… incredible depths of research) and I have to say - if at the end of the whole sordid and sad saga, the thing that rubs you the wrong way is Donziger himself, I feel like something is a little bit wrong with you?

Like, yes, it seems clear that Donziger did many ethically wrong things, crossed lines, and generally went scorched earth in his decades long campaign against Chevron.

But he’s now been under house arrest for more than two years…
Donziger's contempt charge and house arrest have been harshly condemned by some legal advocates. Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six-month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries.[39] Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson criticized Chevron and Kaplan, stating that the corruption and bribery charges were a "means to protect the oil company from having to answer for its degradation of the Amazon".[54] In 2020, a group of twenty-nine Nobel laureates condemned "judicial harassment" by Chevron and urged the release of Donziger.[3] Human rights campaigners described the treatment of Donziger as an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which are used to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[3][28]

The European Parliament, one of the three branches of the European Union, requested that the Congressional Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties investigate Chevron's treatment of Donziger as "not consistent with what has traditionally been the strong support in the United States for the rule of law generally and for protection for human rights defenders in particular".
The foundational piece of evidence, as far as I can tell, that people see as truly crossing the line is the allegation that he paid off the judge - but that claim has been variously retracted and remade, and the judge in question was at the time living on Chevron’s dime and is widely acknowledged to be entirely corrupt and willing to say whatever he was told to say?

Idk - the whole thing is super embarrassing, but most embarrassing of all is that Donziger is currently under house arrest. This is America - disbar him and feel free to sue him, but having a law firm privately prosecute him after SDNY declined to do so? Begins to look a little bit banana republic in here.

You think of all the incredibly shady litigation tactics big corporations have taken throughout history, including bribes and payoffs and other downright obstructionist behavior - Big Tobacco comes to mind - and I wonder how many of their representatives ever spent 2 years under house arrest for contempt of court?

Not arguing for Donziger, just arguing that maybe you’re bothered by the wrong things about this case?

LBJ's Hair

Silver
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by LBJ's Hair » Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:32 pm

Ultramar vistas wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:02 pm
So I just read the Wikipedia article for Donziger (I know… incredible depths of research) and I have to say - if at the end of the whole sordid and sad saga, the thing that rubs you the wrong way is Donziger himself, I feel like something is a little bit wrong with you?

Like, yes, it seems clear that Donziger did many ethically wrong things, crossed lines, and generally went scorched earth in his decades long campaign against Chevron.

But he’s now been under house arrest for more than two years…
Donziger's contempt charge and house arrest have been harshly condemned by some legal advocates. Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six-month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries.[39] Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson criticized Chevron and Kaplan, stating that the corruption and bribery charges were a "means to protect the oil company from having to answer for its degradation of the Amazon".[54] In 2020, a group of twenty-nine Nobel laureates condemned "judicial harassment" by Chevron and urged the release of Donziger.[3] Human rights campaigners described the treatment of Donziger as an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which are used to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[3][28]

The European Parliament, one of the three branches of the European Union, requested that the Congressional Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties investigate Chevron's treatment of Donziger as "not consistent with what has traditionally been the strong support in the United States for the rule of law generally and for protection for human rights defenders in particular".
The foundational piece of evidence, as far as I can tell, that people see as truly crossing the line is the allegation that he paid off the judge - but that claim has been variously retracted and remade, and the judge in question was at the time living on Chevron’s dime and is widely acknowledged to be entirely corrupt and willing to say whatever he was told to say?

Idk - the whole thing is super embarrassing, but most embarrassing of all is that Donziger is currently under house arrest. This is America - disbar him and feel free to sue him, but having a law firm privately prosecute him after SDNY declined to do so? Begins to look a little bit banana republic in here.

You think of all the incredibly shady litigation tactics big corporations have taken throughout history, including bribes and payoffs and other downright obstructionist behavior - Big Tobacco comes to mind - and I wonder how many of their representatives ever spent 2 years under house arrest for contempt of court?

Not arguing for Donziger, just arguing that maybe you’re bothered by the wrong things about this case?
if you're curious about specifics of his case, I would start with this recent opinion by Judge Lynch: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 03-04.html

anyway, good for Cooley.

ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:54 pm

Ultramar vistas wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:02 pm
So I just read the Wikipedia article for Donziger (I know… incredible depths of research) and I have to say - if at the end of the whole sordid and sad saga, the thing that rubs you the wrong way is Donziger himself, I feel like something is a little bit wrong with you?

Like, yes, it seems clear that Donziger did many ethically wrong things, crossed lines, and generally went scorched earth in his decades long campaign against Chevron.

But he’s now been under house arrest for more than two years…
Donziger's contempt charge and house arrest have been harshly condemned by some legal advocates. Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six-month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries.[39] Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson criticized Chevron and Kaplan, stating that the corruption and bribery charges were a "means to protect the oil company from having to answer for its degradation of the Amazon".[54] In 2020, a group of twenty-nine Nobel laureates condemned "judicial harassment" by Chevron and urged the release of Donziger.[3] Human rights campaigners described the treatment of Donziger as an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which are used to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[3][28]

The European Parliament, one of the three branches of the European Union, requested that the Congressional Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties investigate Chevron's treatment of Donziger as "not consistent with what has traditionally been the strong support in the United States for the rule of law generally and for protection for human rights defenders in particular".
The foundational piece of evidence, as far as I can tell, that people see as truly crossing the line is the allegation that he paid off the judge - but that claim has been variously retracted and remade, and the judge in question was at the time living on Chevron’s dime and is widely acknowledged to be entirely corrupt and willing to say whatever he was told to say?

Idk - the whole thing is super embarrassing, but most embarrassing of all is that Donziger is currently under house arrest. This is America - disbar him and feel free to sue him, but having a law firm privately prosecute him after SDNY declined to do so? Begins to look a little bit banana republic in here.

You think of all the incredibly shady litigation tactics big corporations have taken throughout history, including bribes and payoffs and other downright obstructionist behavior - Big Tobacco comes to mind - and I wonder how many of their representatives ever spent 2 years under house arrest for contempt of court?

Not arguing for Donziger, just arguing that maybe you’re bothered by the wrong things about this case?
Are these supposed to be questions? Because despite the repeated use of question marks, they sure sound like statements, not questions.

This is getting way off topic, so I'm not going to dive into the full details here, but I'll encourage you to actually read Judge Kaplan's opinion and other primary source materials:

https://www.sdnyblog.com/files/2014/03/ ... pinion.pdf

Unsurprisingly, the Wikipedia page that you skimmed does not fully capture the extent of Donziger's fraud and the evidence documenting it.

Regarding your contention that no representative of e.g., Big Tobacco has been jailed for two years for contempt of court, setting aside that it's totally irrelevant to Donziger's misconduct - do you have any examples of such a person engaging in similar continued refusal to produce relevant discovery, and getting away with it? Because that's the reason for Donziger's imprisonment.

He could have, at any time, freed himself by producing the devices he (completely frivolously) claims he cannot due to privilege. I don't know if you're a litigator, but even if not, you're probably aware that there are all manner of protections that can be deployed to preserve AC privilege short of a blanket refusal to produce. The only rational explanation is that the contents of the devices in question would lead to much worse consequences than his contempt sentence.

As to SDNY's refusal to prosecute, everyone knows SDNY is full of publicity whores and careerists. Very accomplished ones, no doubt, but it's no secret that SDNY is extremely image-conscious, and Donziger had already shown an aptitude for weaponizing gullible press and social media against his enemies. Note that one of the schemes revealed in his private communications is his orchestration of protests outside courthouses in Ecuador to intimidate judges into ruling in his favor. This is not my characterization; he says as much explicitly in his emails.

I know Chevron is not a sympathetic victim. And frankly, I don't even care about Chevron's interests here. My real beef with Donziger is that he has - loudly, and totally falsely - accused the US judiciary of corruption, when he is totally aware that he's lying about virtually every aspect of the proceedings and underlying facts.

10b5-1

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:25 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by 10b5-1 » Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:57 pm

ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:54 pm
Note that one of the schemes revealed in his private communications is his orchestration of protests outside courthouses in Ecuador to intimidate judges into ruling in his favor. This is not my characterization; he says as much explicitly in his emails.
What am I missing here? Organizing protests outside courthouses is kind of how you make your desires known in a civilized world. At least in America, the First Amendment is generally pretty protective of such activities. I can't speak to how intimidating those protests were, but if that's the worst of it, doesn't sound like anything that isn't just normal activist behaviour.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:31 pm

ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:54 pm

As to SDNY's refusal to prosecute, everyone knows SDNY is full of publicity whores and careerists. Very accomplished ones, no doubt, but it's no secret that SDNY is extremely image-conscious, and Donziger had already shown an aptitude for weaponizing gullible press and social media against his enemies. Note that one of the schemes revealed in his private communications is his orchestration of protests outside courthouses in Ecuador to intimidate judges into ruling in his favor. This is not my characterization; he says as much explicitly in his emails.

I know Chevron is not a sympathetic victim. And frankly, I don't even care about Chevron's interests here. My real beef with Donziger is that he has - loudly, and totally falsely - accused the US judiciary of corruption, when he is totally aware that he's lying about virtually every aspect of the proceedings and underlying facts.
Lets not forget Donzinger initially wanted the trial in NY. It was CHEVRON that got it dismissed from NY for forum non conveniens, arguing that the case should be in Ecuador (which was known to be corrupt, but chevron thought they could use that corruption to their advantage).

As far as SDNY not prosecuting because they are image conscious-- yes, that's called political accountability. It is a feature of the system, not a flaw. A judge overriding that political accountability is deeply deeply problematic

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:31 pm
ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:54 pm

As to SDNY's refusal to prosecute, everyone knows SDNY is full of publicity whores and careerists. Very accomplished ones, no doubt, but it's no secret that SDNY is extremely image-conscious, and Donziger had already shown an aptitude for weaponizing gullible press and social media against his enemies. Note that one of the schemes revealed in his private communications is his orchestration of protests outside courthouses in Ecuador to intimidate judges into ruling in his favor. This is not my characterization; he says as much explicitly in his emails.

I know Chevron is not a sympathetic victim. And frankly, I don't even care about Chevron's interests here. My real beef with Donziger is that he has - loudly, and totally falsely - accused the US judiciary of corruption, when he is totally aware that he's lying about virtually every aspect of the proceedings and underlying facts.
Lets not forget Donzinger initially wanted the trial in NY. It was CHEVRON that got it dismissed from NY for forum non conveniens, arguing that the case should be in Ecuador (which was known to be corrupt, but chevron thought they could use that corruption to their advantage).

As far as SDNY not prosecuting because they are image conscious-- yes, that's called political accountability. It is a feature of the system, not a flaw. A judge overriding that political accountability is deeply deeply problematic
Can someone explain what "political accountability" means? I'm not following.

Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Ultramar vistas » Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:55 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:31 pm
ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:54 pm

As to SDNY's refusal to prosecute, everyone knows SDNY is full of publicity whores and careerists. Very accomplished ones, no doubt, but it's no secret that SDNY is extremely image-conscious, and Donziger had already shown an aptitude for weaponizing gullible press and social media against his enemies. Note that one of the schemes revealed in his private communications is his orchestration of protests outside courthouses in Ecuador to intimidate judges into ruling in his favor. This is not my characterization; he says as much explicitly in his emails.

I know Chevron is not a sympathetic victim. And frankly, I don't even care about Chevron's interests here. My real beef with Donziger is that he has - loudly, and totally falsely - accused the US judiciary of corruption, when he is totally aware that he's lying about virtually every aspect of the proceedings and underlying facts.
Lets not forget Donzinger initially wanted the trial in NY. It was CHEVRON that got it dismissed from NY for forum non conveniens, arguing that the case should be in Ecuador (which was known to be corrupt, but chevron thought they could use that corruption to their advantage).

As far as SDNY not prosecuting because they are image conscious-- yes, that's called political accountability. It is a feature of the system, not a flaw. A judge overriding that political accountability is deeply deeply problematic
Can someone explain what "political accountability" means? I'm not following.
Guessing they mean elected officials not wanting to do unpopular things for fear of their constituents holding them accountable, i.e. voting them out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:55 pm
Can someone explain what "political accountability" means? I'm not following.
agencies often have discretion in what they use their resources for. think trump EPA down prioritizing environmental infractions, biden INS/homeland security (or whoever) down prioritizing certain immigration infractions,etc. This use of discretion is subject to democratic accountability-- if biden agencies down prioritizes immigration infractions past a point of popular support, then there will be pressure on him to change it. If SDNY uses their discretionary resources in a way that engenders public disapproval-- i.e., by spending tons of resources on a borderline case against some guy going after chevron instead of on an endless stream of borderline financial white collar crime in the district-- there will be pressure on their boss, the democratically elected president, to reform them. This is how the system is meant to work. To criticize this design as being "image conscious" or whatever is entirely missing the point of democratic accountability and that this is how the system is designed to work.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:49 pm

The hand-waving going on here borders on outright dishonesty. I'm guessing none of you are actually going to so much as skim the opinion that I linked, because you know it's going to force you to confront the fact that you may have been duped by this guy.

I'll link it again, in case some of you want to deal with the facts of this case, rather than the fictionalized version that Donziger has willed into existence:

https://www.sdnyblog.com/files/2014/03/ ... pinion.pdf
10b5-1 wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:57 pm

What am I missing here? Organizing protests outside courthouses is kind of how you make your desires known in a civilized world. At least in America, the First Amendment is generally pretty protective of such activities. I can't speak to how intimidating those protests were, but if that's the worst of it, doesn't sound like anything that isn't just normal activist behaviour.
Here's Donziger's own description of his intentions:

“need a massive protest on the court, and only after that should we talk to the judge
about what he needs to do. The judge needs to fear us for this to move how it needs
to move, and right now there is no fear, no price to pay for not making these key
decisions
.”

Pg. 68

Donziger's strategy as described in his contemporaneous notes:

"the only way the court will respect us is if they fear us – and that the only way they will fear us is if they think we have . . . control over their careers, their jobs, their reputations – that is to say, their ability to earn a livelihood"

Pg. 70

Also, the context is important - Donziger's desire to lean on the judge was based on his need for the judge to choose a court-appointed expert (who was supposed to be impartial) who Donziger could "control." Note that he eventually succeeded, and ended up personally choosing the court-appointed expert in question. Oh, and this is all orchestrated through ex-parte comms with the judge.

This is the conduct you contend is "just normal activist behavior" that is how one "makes their desires known in a civilized world."
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:31 pm

As far as SDNY not prosecuting because they are image conscious-- yes, that's called political accountability. It is a feature of the system, not a flaw. A judge overriding that political accountability is deeply deeply problematic
Even accepting that "political accountability" is an accurate descriptor here, you are talking about political accountability that is premised on a lie. If SDNY was reticent to prosecute because they knew Donziger's lies about their motivations would get amplified out into the world, how is that a good thing? Following your logic, GOP-controlled states passing absurdly restrictive voting legislation premised on Trump's lies about the 2020 election being stolen is also a good thing, and the system working as intended.

As for the judge overriding it, that power is specifically provided for by statute. If your contention that SDNY declining to prosecute represents the system working as intended, why are you not similarly accepting of Judge Kaplan exercising a power that the system specifically grants him? After all, it's a "feature of the system," to use your parlance.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:04 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:55 pm
Can someone explain what "political accountability" means? I'm not following.
agencies often have discretion in what they use their resources for. think trump EPA down prioritizing environmental infractions, biden INS/homeland security (or whoever) down prioritizing certain immigration infractions,etc. This use of discretion is subject to democratic accountability-- if biden agencies down prioritizes immigration infractions past a point of popular support, then there will be pressure on him to change it. If SDNY uses their discretionary resources in a way that engenders public disapproval-- i.e., by spending tons of resources on a borderline case against some guy going after chevron instead of on an endless stream of borderline financial white collar crime in the district-- there will be pressure on their boss, the democratically elected president, to reform them. This is how the system is meant to work. To criticize this design as being "image conscious" or whatever is entirely missing the point of democratic accountability and that this is how the system is designed to work.
Calling it a "borderline case" suggests that you don't even have a surface level knowledge of the underlying facts.

There was nothing borderline about it. He was subject to a lawful order to produce certain of his electronic devices in discovery. Notably, he did not pursue any legitimate avenues to challenge that order. Instead, he just asserted a blanket refusal to produce any of his devices on the basis of privilege. Which, as I already pointed out, is completely improper.

So no, it was not remotely "borderline," it was an open and shut contempt case. SDNY's refusal to prosecute was, in my opinion, a cowardly abdication of duty. As I expressed above, the idea that this is "political accountability" totally ignores that all of this public pressure arises out of Donziger's lies. The notion that this is a good thing is completely absurd to me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:34 pm

ExpOriental wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:49 pm
Calling it a "borderline case" suggests that you don't even have a surface level knowledge of the underlying facts.

There was nothing borderline about it. He was subject to a lawful order to produce certain of his electronic devices in discovery. Notably, he did not pursue any legitimate avenues to challenge that order. Instead, he just asserted a blanket refusal to produce any of his devices on the basis of privilege. Which, as I already pointed out, is completely improper.

So no, it was not remotely "borderline," it was an open and shut contempt case. SDNY's refusal to prosecute was, in my opinion, a cowardly abdication of duty. As I expressed above, the idea that this is "political accountability" totally ignores that all of this public pressure arises out of Donziger's lies. The notion that this is a good thing is completely absurd to me.
If we’re going to call officials cowardly because they’re making calculated moves, I find it curious that you’re citing Kaplan’s (one-sided, often unreasoned to the level of assertion) screed as gospel. You have a judge with life tenure, who’s spent his career representing Philip Morris for Paul Weiss, basically deciding that after the SDNY decided they weren’t going to sue (whether this is political or just a lack of credible evidence, which prosecutors are meant to consider) he was going to find his own law firm to do the deed. And then appear before him, rather than, say, a Jed Rakoff.

This whole mess underscores the old adage that a good lawyer knows the law and a great lawyer knows the judge. Chevron failed to get the guy in Ecuador to do their bidding, so they found someone sympathetic in New York.

Prince Andrew should be licking his lips at the possibilities presented byKaplan presiding over his case. After all, he’s hiding behind someone else’s agreement to assert immunity from suit, just like Chevron did.

(As an aside, nice job taking a thread about Chevron taking out its ire at, and unwillingness to abide byx a judgment in a forum it chose on a bunch of new lawyers into some kind of defense predicated on 470-odd pages of questionable assertions. The initial post wasn’t about the merits of Chevron’s case, but about its ex post conduct against collateral parties, even leaving Donziger aside. See also the way they had Gibson Dunn go after Patton Boggs, because of course lawyers - even plaintiffs’ lawyers - should be held accountable for the misdeeds of their clients in a functioning democracy, and the party with the most money to throw at lawyers should also win. All up, what they got away with was almost as much an affront to the rule of law as Peter Thiel’s successful vendetta against Gawker was to the First Amendment.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:56 pm

What a piece of shit.

Good job Cooley. Anon because who knows if my firm would fire me, because it might have gone the other way.

ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:34 pm

If we’re going to call officials cowardly because they’re making calculated moves, I find it curious that you’re citing Kaplan’s (one-sided, often unreasoned to the level of assertion) screed as gospel. You have a judge with life tenure, who’s spent his career representing Philip Morris for Paul Weiss, basically deciding that after the SDNY decided they weren’t going to sue (whether this is political or just a lack of credible evidence, which prosecutors are meant to consider) he was going to find his own law firm to do the deed. And then appear before him, rather than, say, a Jed Rakoff.

This whole mess underscores the old adage that a good lawyer knows the law and a great lawyer knows the judge. Chevron failed to get the guy in Ecuador to do their bidding, so they found someone sympathetic in New York.

Prince Andrew should be licking his lips at the possibilities presented byKaplan presiding over his case. After all, he’s hiding behind someone else’s agreement to assert immunity from suit, just like Chevron did.

(As an aside, nice job taking a thread about Chevron taking out its ire at, and unwillingness to abide byx a judgment in a forum it chose on a bunch of new lawyers into some kind of defense predicated on 470-odd pages of questionable assertions. The initial post wasn’t about the merits of Chevron’s case, but about its ex post conduct against collateral parties, even leaving Donziger aside. See also the way they had Gibson Dunn go after Patton Boggs, because of course lawyers - even plaintiffs’ lawyers - should be held accountable for the misdeeds of their clients in a functioning democracy, and the party with the most money to throw at lawyers should also win. All up, what they got away with was almost as much an affront to the rule of law as Peter Thiel’s successful vendetta against Gawker was to the First Amendment.)
Just an embarrassing post from top to bottom. I'd be abusing anon too, if I was inclined to ineffectually wheedle to this extent.

First, you drew zero logical connection between my comment that SDNY acted cowardly and Kaplan's actions. That is a total non-sequitur, just like you mentioning that Kaplan represented Philip Morris at Paul Weiss, or that he has life tenure, or that he's hearing the Prince Andrew lawsuit (which he just denied the dismissal of, so not exactly consistent with your point). None of these things are related or relevant to what we're discussing.

Second, you again demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the circumstances precipitating SDNY's refusal to prosecute (not "sue," an bizarre choice of language that, frankly, makes me question whether you're even a lawyer). There was no possibility of there being a "lack of credible evidence." To even suggest that indicates that you don't understand what actually happened, even though I've explained it twice in this very thread. Donziger was given a lawful order to produce certain electronic devices in discovery. He refused, baselessly asserting privilege. He did not pursue any legal relief, such as an appeal, nor did he pursue any of the many options available to preserve privilege, such as a special master. He simply refused to comply. These facts are not in dispute. It was open and shut contempt; there is no explanation for SDNY's refusal to prosecute besides politics.

Third, it's incredible that you suggest that after Kaplan appointed Seward to prosecute, they would "then appear before him" when, as has been extremely well-publicized, the contempt proceedings were before Judge Preska. And it's pretty funny that you cite Judge Rakoff as someone whose integrity would not be in question whereas Kaplan's is - Donziger described Rakoff as "corrupt too" and "totally biased against us" in the outtakes of the Crude documentary he had made about himself.

Lastly, to call Judge Kaplan's opinion a "one-sided, unreasoned screed" is laughable, and leads me to conclude that you're either being intentionally dishonest, or simply haven't read it. It covers pages upon pages of Donziger's personal notes and communications, along with quotes from Donziger himself as filmed for the documentary where he outlines in detail his plans to bribe, intimidate, and otherwise corrupt key players in Ecuador to achieve his ends.

If your arguments are going to be this slapdash and easy to topple, why even make them in the first place? Like, go on believing that Donziger is being unfairly persecuted if you want. But putting your shoddy rationalizations out into the open to be picked apart is just going to make the ringing in your ears from the cognitive dissonance louder. You might as well save yourself the trouble.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8502
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by lavarman84 » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:39 am

Exp0riental, did you clerk for Kaplan or something? This all is coming off as if it's personal to you.

My personal take is that Donziger is a slimeball, but he shouldn't have been prosecuted after the SDNY declined. Kaplan appointing a firm that has represented Chevron in the past and picking which judge it would go before gives off all the wrong optics. And then Preska refusing Donziger a jury trial only made it worse. Yes, I am aware that Donziger didn't have a right to a jury trial, but that was the cherry on top of the cake of terrible optics.

The absolutely inept way the judiciary handled this is a big part of the problem. If you're going to do it, appoint a lawyer/firm that didn't previously represent Chevron, have the case go through random assignment, and then let it go to a jury. Instead, the optics of it are that Kaplan rigged the thing from the beginning. Do I think there was some big conspiracy? No. But it wouldn't have been difficult to do this thing the right way (or not at all) so that the sequence of events didn't create that impression.

Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by Ultramar vistas » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:14 am

:)
lavarman84 wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:39 am
Exp0riental, did you clerk for Kaplan or something? This all is coming off as if it's personal to you.

My personal take is that Donziger is a slimeball, but he shouldn't have been prosecuted after the SDNY declined. Kaplan appointing a firm that has represented Chevron in the past and picking which judge it would go before gives off all the wrong optics. And then Preska refusing Donziger a jury trial only made it worse. Yes, I am aware that Donziger didn't have a right to a jury trial, but that was the cherry on top of the cake of terrible optics.

The absolutely inept way the judiciary handled this is a big part of the problem. If you're going to do it, appoint a lawyer/firm that didn't previously represent Chevron, have the case go through random assignment, and then let it go to a jury. Instead, the optics of it are that Kaplan rigged the thing from the beginning. Do I think there was some big conspiracy? No. But it wouldn't have been difficult to do this thing the right way (or not at all) so that the sequence of events didn't create that impression.
Co-sign.

FF2020

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:10 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by FF2020 » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:49 pm

Ultramar vistas wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:14 am
:)
lavarman84 wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:39 am
Exp0riental, did you clerk for Kaplan or something? This all is coming off as if it's personal to you.

My personal take is that Donziger is a slimeball, but he shouldn't have been prosecuted after the SDNY declined. Kaplan appointing a firm that has represented Chevron in the past and picking which judge it would go before gives off all the wrong optics. And then Preska refusing Donziger a jury trial only made it worse. Yes, I am aware that Donziger didn't have a right to a jury trial, but that was the cherry on top of the cake of terrible optics.

The absolutely inept way the judiciary handled this is a big part of the problem. If you're going to do it, appoint a lawyer/firm that didn't previously represent Chevron, have the case go through random assignment, and then let it go to a jury. Instead, the optics of it are that Kaplan rigged the thing from the beginning. Do I think there was some big conspiracy? No. But it wouldn't have been difficult to do this thing the right way (or not at all) so that the sequence of events didn't create that impression.
Co-sign.
Same.

ExpOriental

Bronze
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Cooley / Musk

Post by ExpOriental » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:35 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:39 am
Exp0riental, did you clerk for Kaplan or something? This all is coming off as if it's personal to you.

My personal take is that Donziger is a slimeball, but he shouldn't have been prosecuted after the SDNY declined. Kaplan appointing a firm that has represented Chevron in the past and picking which judge it would go before gives off all the wrong optics. And then Preska refusing Donziger a jury trial only made it worse. Yes, I am aware that Donziger didn't have a right to a jury trial, but that was the cherry on top of the cake of terrible optics.

The absolutely inept way the judiciary handled this is a big part of the problem. If you're going to do it, appoint a lawyer/firm that didn't previously represent Chevron, have the case go through random assignment, and then let it go to a jury. Instead, the optics of it are that Kaplan rigged the thing from the beginning. Do I think there was some big conspiracy? No. But it wouldn't have been difficult to do this thing the right way (or not at all) so that the sequence of events didn't create that impression.
No, of course I didn't. I just find Donziger repugnant, and the dishonest defenses of him I'm seeing in this thread have me incensed (that is not directed at you, to be clear).

As to whether it could've been handled better, sure, I agree. But as you note, that's for the benefit of laypeople who are otherwise susceptible to Donziger's lies about the true nature of his prosecution, not because there's any genuine question as to his guilt.

I assumed, apparently wrongly, that people on this forum would know better.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”