Judge Blasts Oregon County Lawyers Over ‘Gob Smacking Failure’ Of Court Ethics

An Oregon judge had stern words for the attorneys representing Multnomah County in its climate lawsuit, criticizing their handling of evidence and lack of transparency during a hearing on Thursday. [emphasis, links added]

Oregon Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Souede heard arguments on a defendant’s motion to strike two climate studies cited in the County’s filings.

The motion, filed last month, detailed how the County’s counsel, Roger Worthington, was involved in the preparation and funding of the studies, despite the plaintiff’s treatment of the studies as independent sources.

Although Judge Souede said he would ultimately deny the motion to strike, he did so based on Oregon’s narrow legal definition of fraud, not on the merits of the plaintiff’s actions.

And he made clear that he found those actions troubling:

“Almost a gob smacking failure by plaintiff to do anything close to what we expect a counsel and a party to do in litigation, especially in litigation that is well-funded, that is hard-fought, that is complicated, that is about important issues.

“I just want to say it clearly, it is not acceptable to submit a declaration by an expert that is based in part on a reliance on a scientific article that plaintiff’s counsel helped to fund without pointing out to the Court that that is so.” [emphasis added]

Alongside Souede’s scalding appraisal of the climate litigation attorney’s conduct, let’s look at what other issues of the case’s evidence the hearing revealed.

Counsel Concedes Conduct Fell Short

Despite the Judge’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to strike, the hearing exposed major weaknesses in the plaintiff’s argument – weaknesses their own counsel appeared to acknowledge.

At one point, Judge Souede pressed the County’s attorneys on the logic of their position:

“It’s ridiculous to suggest that an attorney who helped fund the study that that attorney then retains an expert in a case who relies on that study?… It’s ridiculous to suggest that that is not in some way mutually reinforcing, or that if you’ll forgive the expression, that there might be some smoke there?”

In response, the plaintiff conceded, “[I]t’s probably not ridiculous.”

That admission effectively confirmed the defendants’ argument that the County’s counsel’s involvement in shaping and funding the studies undermines their independence and raises legitimate credibility questions.

Later in the hearing, Judge Souede pressed again, asking whether the plaintiff’s counsel believed this kind of conduct was appropriate – or something they would engage in again and “feel good about.” The response was telling:

“Your honor, for the courts convenience, we probably should have identified that. But as the court knows, funding of articles does not make the article inadmissible in evidence. It simply means it simply gives the other party a basis for cross examination on that issue.” [emphasis added]

In other words, the plaintiffs now concede they should have disclosed the funding connection – but only after the court raised it.

A Pattern of Broader Transparency Concerns

Multnomah County’s hearing was far from the latest eyebrow-raising discussion of the lack of transparency and shady dark money network funding climate lawfare on a national level.

Just as the dark money funding and lack of transparency in Multnomah are on par with other climate lawsuits, so are the ambitions.

As Energy in Depth has previously covered, the true motives behind Multnomah’s climate lawsuit have never been in question.

During a County Commissioner meeting discussing the filing of a climate lawsuit, District 3 Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards made it clear the county was looking to go far beyond the county’s borders:

“As the Public Health Authority, the County has a responsibility to take action on behalf of the County residents on significant public health issues. For me, it falls into a case of ‘think globally, act locally,’ and hopefully our local action will have a much broader, global impact.” [emphasis added]

Utilizing apparently grassroots local action to accomplish a much broader goal is a key quality of the wider climate lawfare campaign.

These concerns have already been raised in other similar cases, with the U.S. Department of Justice and 24 state attorneys general pushing the Maryland Supreme Court to prevent policy overreach with the state’s climate lawsuits.

Multnomah’s case presents another opportunity for local governments and billionaire funders to circumvent the policymaking process in the United States, shoving biased opinions through the courts.

A Serious Blow to Credibility

Judge Souede left little room for interpretation: unethical, undisclosed behavior by attorneys has no place in the courtroom.

By failing to inform the court about their own role in funding and influencing key evidence, Multnomah County’s lawyers fell short of the basic standards of candor and transparency.

And while the ultimate ruling may have denied the motion on technical grounds, the hearing itself delivered a far more damaging verdict: a public loss of credibility for a case – and a broader litigation campaign – built on dark money and hidden agendas.

Read more at EID Climate