Plaintiff Lawyer, Alleged Racketeer, Says Accuser Chevron Has Been Duped By Its Lawyers

Gibson Dunn’s decision to argue in favor of imposing a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act order on behalf of its client Chevron – while at the same time arguing against such an order in a separate case, for another client – is being hailed as a double-cross maneuver by Steven Donzinger, a New York plaintiff’s attorney. In fact it’s Donzinger who would be the party on the receiving end of the RICO order, as he is being sued, by his own admission successfully, by Gibson Dunn on behalf of Chevron. The allegations of double-dealing being levied against Gibson Dunn have “superficial sizzle,” says Paul M. Barrett, a Bloomberg senior writer who is writing a book on the case, but they are based on a miscasting of what lawyers do all the time: make the best case they can for the client who is paying them. When conflicting positions are taken, Barrett says, client permission must be granted from both parties, and in this case the client, Chevron, gave the okay.