Point taken. Of course we can only guess as to why Fajardo acted as he did, but he has worked long and hard on this case, so it seems unlikely that he would willingly give up so much money.

Whilst I would not want to speculate on threats of waterboarding etc, I can imagine his position to be very difficult given that President Correa told him Chevron could “liquidate Ecuador”. With or without threats of torture, the choices are difficult.

Whilst the fact remains that Fajardo went out on a limb and made decisions without consulting his clients or colleagues, the circumstances were quite unique. Has there ever been a case where a lawyer has to choose between his client and the economy of his country?

Thanks, Peter, for the perspective. One twist: it seems to me that the more one points to the possibility that Fajardo was pressured, the more one calls the Ecuadoran judgment itself into doubt. If things are so bad in Ecuador that the government threatens lawyers with truncheons, waterboarding, or whatever, then yikes! If, on the other hand, the threats were not in that league, then Fajardo’s conduct becomes more difficult to understand let alone excuse.

Sorry for the delayed response – I’ve not looked at this for a while, and other events have since overtaken this issue anyway. However, for the record, no I didn’t ever expect that this money would somehow become available with the embargo lifted. What I meant was that I hoped the Fajardo and Donziger teams would be able to resolve their differences moving forward, since I don’t think Fajardo would have acted as he did if he felt he had a choice.

If by “resolved” you mean the LAPs get the money, then Ecuador will have to pay twice, which is, apparently, exactly what it isn’t willing to do!

You would think!

Well the LAPs had an embargo on the award and I think they expected to be able to enforce it. I don’t think Ecuador would have ever anticipated paying twice, so presumably would have argued that in paying the LAPs the debt to Chevron had been satisfied as their $9.5 billion judgement was reduced accordingly. Surely the embargo would never have been put in place otherwise.
The release put out by the LAPs states that Fajardo acted without their consent and that they have suspended ties with him. I have huge admiration for Fajardo and all that he has achieved, but something has gone wrong here and it’s really disappointing. I hope it can be resolved.

Peter, I’m not sure I see a basis for your second paragraph. Chevron would say that Ecuador couldn’t satisfy the arbitral award by paying the amount due to the LAPs rather than to Chevron.

On the question of Fajardo, I hope for his sake that your speculation is incorrect. Assuming that Ecuadoran lawyers are supposed to act in their clients’ interests, and assuming that he really didn’t have his clients’ approval to act, I would say he is or at least should in some deep trouble with whomever regulates the practice of law in Ecuador.

This may be right, but what about the clients? I don’t know what the law governing lawyers in Ecuador is like, but I have to assume that Ecuadoran lawyers are required to put the interests of their clients first.

My understanding from reading the article is that the Ecuadorian government is currently looking into options of financing the country’s debt; that Chevron threatened to block that (god knows how) and the government asked the LAPs to lift the embargo on the funds based on this threat. Maybe I’m wrong.