In a December 7th interview with Ecuadorian radio station Majestad, plaintiff’s attorney Julio Prieto makes mention of a law firm bankrolling the environmental lawsuit currently pending against Chevron in Ecuador.

The referenced firm is Kohn, Swift & Graf PC of Philadelphia, the primary entity providing a majority of, if not all of the funding for the lawsuit against Chevron.

When U.S.-based trial lawyer, Cristóbal Bonifaz, first concocted the original lawsuit against Texaco in 1993, he contacted Harold Kohn, a Philadelphia class-action lawyer. Shortly thereafter, Kohn’s son, Joe, who later became a partner at Kohn Swift & Graf, signed on. Subsequently, Kohn enlisted Steven Donziger, a New York-based trial lawyer who went to law school with Bonifaz’s son.

When asked about his motivation for taking on the case against Chevron in the movie Crude, Joe Kohn candidly stated, “it was not taken as a pro bono case, you know, a lot of my motivation is, at the end of the day… it will be a lucrative case for the firm.”

As part of the Kohn, Swift and Graf financed PR campaign to take Chevron’s reputation hostage and ransom it back to the company in the form of a large settlement, Kohn has hired DC lobbyist Ben Barnes to lobby the US Congress on “environmental matters resulting from oil exploration in Ecuador.” Barnes then hired DC based PR representative Karen Hinton to spread misinformation and distort the facts of the case.

Years of misinformation and distortion spread by U.S. trial lawyers and their PR cohorts lead the public and media to believe that 30,000 indigenous Amazonians are behind this lawsuit, and that any financial award from a settlement or verdict would go to the indigenous peoples of the Oriente.

However, the truth tells a different story.  Kohn’s firm has coordinated a series of economic and political relationships between the Ecuadorian government, U.S. trial lawyers and activist groups in an effort to put pressure on a small rural courtroom in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, to find Chevron guilty in an environmental lawsuit. Any financial awards as a result of a settlement or judgment against Chevron would invariably go only to the Ecuadorian government and the U.S. contingency fee lawyers driving this frivolous lawsuit. In fact, Washington Pesántez Prosecutor General of Ecuador confirmed that “90% [of any judgment against Chevron] would be delivered to the State…”

One thing is certain, Chevron will continue to fight this misguided and disingenuous lawsuit until justice prevails.

Ever wonder why the U.S. trial lawyers in the Ecuadorian Amazon litigation case against Chevron choose to sue Texaco, the minority partner in the consortium that launched the country’s energy industry, and not Petroecuador? After all, Petroecuador, the state owned oil company, was the majority partner and became 100% responsible for the oil production in the concession area in 1992.

Here’s why.

According to Ecuadorian news sources, the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the lawsuit against Chevron promised the Quito government they would not sue Ecuador’s state oil company Petroecuador over environmental damage in the Amazon.

Lawyer Cristobal Bonifaz, one of the architects of the lawsuit, has given written assurances to Ecuador’s government that Petroecuador would be spared a lawsuit if government officials threw their clout behind the plaintiffs.

In a 1997 interview appearing in the Ecuadorian newspaper Hoy, Bonifaz said, “There is no reason for the Government to worry because the plaintiffs and their lawyers have undertaken in legal documents to refrain from suing the Government if it is ultimately held to be jointly liable with Texaco for the environmental damage caused.”

A week later, Bonifaz told the Ecuadorian newspaper El Comercio, “I delivered notarized documents to the Attorney General confirming the indigenous people’s commitment to refrain from suing the Government.”

However, none of the plaintiffs’ attorneys have ever reported this arrangement or provided these documents to the Superior Court of Nueva Loja, which is overseeing the current trial. Nor have Chevron’s attorneys been able to obtain a copy.

Instead of taking on Texaco Petroleum and Petroecuador, U.S. trial lawyers have sought to sue only Chevron for environmental issues they say were left behind in Ecuador by Texaco (which Chevron acquired in 2001). Moreover, they knowingly ignore Petroecuador’s ongoing pollution and environmental mismanagement.

Meanwhile, the case in Ecuador has been marred by excessive government interference – interference that has prompted a warning by the U.S. government trade representatives.