I do believe that is a big part of his legacy, unfortunately.

In the end Donziger’s legacy is that he irreparably destroyed the case for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs

Paul, I agree with the spirit of this. The bigger problem is that when you realize that this is how people form their opinions and how influential people say or write things aimed at forming peoples’ opinions, it becomes difficult to know what you ought to believe, at least in areas outside of your own expertise.

People have so little faith in our court system, they just assume lawyers do these things all the time, and support Donziger because they support environmentalism and don’t like multinational corporations. They are unwilling to read Judge Kaplan’s lengthy opinions that went through all the evidence, but will read Donziger’s press releases and believe them. A lot of his supporters just seem like gullible people, but they really don’t care what’s true, as long as it reinforces their opinions.

And, as I say in one of the footnotes, that leaves aside his refusal to stop profiting from the judgment after the court found it was obtained by fraud.

The reason Amnesty’s piece is bad is that it suggests that Donziger was being punished for his environmental advocacy when in fact, he violated court orders over a long period and the orders were issued because he wouldn’t give routine post-judgment discovery.

https://truthout.org/articles/16-groups-urge-biden-to-pardon-lawyer-steven-donziger-who-took-on-chevron/