Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/14/2026 6:59:09 AM PST by Twotone
Energy Louisiana Trial Lawyers Steered Thousands to Judge Overseeing Their Case Against Oil Companies—Then Won a $744 Million Judgment 'The whole thing is set up as a kangaroo court,' former AG Bill Barr tells Free Beacon L: Offshore oil and gas platform (Mario Tama/Getty Images) R: Chevron logo Thomas Catenacci January 12, 2026
The Louisiana attorneys who helped secure a landmark verdict requiring U.S. oil company Chevron to pay $744 million in environmental damages gave nearly $15,000 to the state judge who presided over the case, ethics filings reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The Baton Rouge-based law firm Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello and its lead partners gave $5,000 to Judge Michael Clement's campaign across four separate payments made on March 24, 2014, according to the filings. Days earlier, four other firms involved in the case gave Clement another $3,500. Those contributions were in addition to the $6,250 the firms wired Clement in 2011 and 2012.
The 2014 contributions came during a judicial election in which Clement ran unopposed. It also came four months after the firms filed their landmark environmental lawsuit against more than a dozen other oil companies, including Chevron, in Clement's judicial district.
The decade-long lawsuit argues the companies' drilling activity dating back to the 1940s—when they produced oil to aid the U.S. military's war effort—is responsible for the state's coastal erosion. It eventually made its way before Clement, who oversaw the 2025 trial.
The revelation raises ethics questions about the firms' involvement in the case and whether their payments were aimed at securing a friendlier trial.
Legal experts have criticized Clement's handling of the trial, noting that he abruptly changed course on a judgment favoring oil companies in one instance; excluded evidence defendants said was crucial to understanding why they didn't pursue certain permits in the mid-1900s in another; and chastised defendants' lawyers for questioning whether a jurist who was employed by the plaintiffs could fairly evaluate the evidence.
It also comes as the Supreme Court heard the on case Monday. The High Court is expected to rule on whether it belongs in state or federal court.
According to Carrie Severino, the president of the right-leaning Judicial Crisis Network, Monday's oral arguments suggest the court is poised to rule for oil company defendants, which would mean the case and all related cases in Louisiana would have to be pursued in federal court. Severino said the court's three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, clearly leaned in favor of Plaquemines Parish based on their questioning. While the other justices were not as clear in their views of the case, their questioning suggested they leaned in favor of moving the case to federal court. Justice Sam Alito recused himself from the case over a financial stake in an involved oil company.
"The Supreme Court underscored the importance of this case in granting review and in the attention paid to the issues in today’s argument," Chevron spokesman Bill Turenne said in a statement. "Chevron remains confident that a federal court is the proper forum for these cases and looks forward to the Court's decision."
If the court rules in favor of oil industry defendants, the state judgment would be tossed and the plaintiff, Plaquemines Parish, a coastal jurisdiction that is home to roughly 23,500 Louisianians, would have to start over in federal court. But if it rules in favor of Plaquemines, the case would remain in state court and Chevron would be forced to pay the $744 million judgment, a share of which would be awarded to the law firms that spearheaded the case.
According to the legal services contract the firms entered into with Plaquemines Parish, which was reviewed by the Free Beacon, the exact amount the lawyers representing the parish will reap from the judgment would ultimately be decided by the state court, meaning Clement could have a direct say in how much the firms, his donors, are paid.
"The whole thing is set up as a kangaroo court. The whole structure of this was set up to, basically, pander to the interests of these plaintiff's lawyers," former U.S. attorney general William Barr told the Free Beacon in an interview. "You have all these different cases with these guys getting big payouts if they can force a settlement."
"The dogs are being let loose on these companies for political reasons," Barr added.
Overall, Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello has spearheaded dozens of environmental damages cases against the oil industry on behalf of coastal jurisdictions in Louisiana since 2013. That means the Supreme Court decision in the Plaquemines case, depending on how it rules, could lay the groundwork for tens of billions of dollars' worth of judgments against oil companies, something that could cripple the industry.
That may explain why the Environmental Defense Fund, a left-wing nonprofit that has taken the oil industry to court dozens of times in support of a nationwide transition to green energy, and other environmental groups defended Plaquemines's lawsuit in briefs filed with the Supreme Court. The Trump administration, several Republican state attorneys general, and Republican lawmakers filed briefs in support of oil industry defendants.
"You're talking about judgments of $50 billion," Richard Epstein, a New York University law professor, told reporters during a webinar about the case on Wednesday. "That assumes that they're at the same level. There's always a tendency in these cases for verdicts to snowfall. Plaquemines will become the minimum for the next jury in the next county, which will go for an even larger number. So, this thing has to stop now."
Clement didn't return a request for comment.
The contributions made to the judge are just the tip of the iceberg in Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello's political support for or against candidates who could potentially impact the firm's cases.
The firm's lead attorney, John Carmouche, for example, chaired the Citizens for Clean Water and Land political action committee in 2012, according to campaign filings. The PAC said in the filings that its activity was designed to elect then-state appellate judge Jefferson Hughes to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Carmouche, his father Donald, and another attorney at the firm, Victor Marcello, gave a total of $280,000 to the PAC in the final months before the election. That represents a sizable share of the $781,539 the PAC spent to elect Hughes that year. The effort proved successful: Hughes won in a December 2012 runoff by a narrow margin and remains on the state's highest court, making him eligible to potentially hear appeals related to the cases against the oil industry.
Then, in 2015, Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello funneled $1.1 million to the Louisiana Water Coalition PAC, which opposed the gubernatorial candidacy of former Sen. David Vitter (R., La.), who campaigned on a platform of opposing the firm's lawsuits against the oil industry. The firm also gave the PAC $1.2 million in zero percent interest loans that same year.
The firm and its partners simultaneously gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat John Bel Edwards, who defeated Vitter and supported the lawsuits during his eight-year term as governor.
Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello has also given hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of current Louisiana governor Jeff Landry (R.) and attorney general Liz Murrill (R.), who have supported the lawsuits. In 2016, as the state's attorney general, Landry signed a joint prosecution agreement with the firm, which included an extraordinary provision binding the state to reject oil defendants' arguments regardless of merit.
Months after taking office in 2024, Landry appointed Carmouche to the Louisiana State University board of supervisors, a highly sought-after plum position that is usually given to close political allies and comes with access to seats in the board suite at LSU football games.
Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello didn't return a request for comment.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Pretty dang cheap!
everything about “judge shopping” should be investigated and stopped. It should be illegal.
I find it hard to believe that Louisiana lawyers would do such a thing.
$15,000 invested for a $744 million payout. That's quite a return on investment.
“everything about “judge shopping” should be investigated and stopped. It should be illegal.”
The people who have the power to stop it are the people who benefit from it.
Indeed.
Unless, it's a cost of doing business and they contributed to ALL judges. Like Trump saying that as a NYC builder, he had to contribute to both parties.
Were there any Pelicans involved in this verdict??
My thought exactly.
Just their briefs.
demonKKKrats?
I am a Louisiana native that escaped 40 years ago. The corruption there is endemic, at every level and sphere of goobermint. Sickening....
Who is in jail !!!
A crooked judge? That is not surprising. Find an honest judge, that would be exceptional.
ALL of the attorneys in that firm should be disbarred!
Shakedown Town
right. I’m guessing it was more like 10x $15,000 went to the judge.
I need to consider what Justice Jackson will have to say on this matter before I can decide. /sarcasm
Who should be sued is the Corp of Engineers. For flood prevention they have put the Mississippi River in a straight jacket of levees. During the spring floods of past, much sediment came down the river and was deposited in the delta thus maintaining it. Today all that sediment flows to the mouth of the river and down the continental slope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.