Half of Federal Judges Have Conflicts of Interests In Oil Spill Lawsuits

A long standing judicial rule is that judges should not preside over cases in which bias and prejudice may exist. Bias and prejudice exists where a judge may have a financial interest in the case. Where such a conflict of interest occurs, a judge can “recuse” him or herself from the case, which means “remove” him or herself from the case, allowing another judge, who lacks a conflict of interest, to reach a disposition on the merits of the lawsuit. Attorneys for either the plaintiff or the respondent may also request a recusual, where bias or prejudice can be shown.

Research has shown that over half of the federal judges in the districts affected by British Petroleum’s oil spill have financial interests in the oil industry. Consequently, conflicts of interests are present which will make it difficult to find judges who can impartially rule on lawsuits against the oil field companies responsible.

The AP reports: “Thirty-seven of the 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida have links to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean — and others who regularly list receiving royalties from wells, say 2008 disclosure forms, the most recent available that judges must file.”

Because BP, Halliburton and Transocean are listed as respondents in over 150 lawsuits already filed —certainly there are many more to come— it will be increasingly more difficult to find judges who are able to impartially rule over the case.

Just imagine, though. You are a federal judge among the minority of federal judges in the affected districts who do not directly have a financial interest in the case. However, all of your colleagues, your mentors, and your superiors stand to lose a significant amount of money in their retirement investments depending upon how you interpret the pertinent legislation and the constitution. Also, despite the growing number of individuals directly affected by the oil spill, will more Americans indirectly suffer than the number of individuals directed affected if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs and judgments that would bankrupt or cripple these oil field giants, where the economy might experience fall-out? Does not actually having your own investments linked with the oil field really mean you are still impartial?

Already, the affected parties are squabbling over who should preside over these cases, the same way that attorneys carefully engage themselves in jury selection. In jury selection, the goal of the attorneys is pick the jurors who are most likely to rule in favor of their clients. Each lawyer is allowed to remove a certain number of the opposing party’s selected jurors. Jury selection has become a science for trial lawyers.

Likewise, so is the selection of judges. Except, the clients represented by the lawyers, and the lawyers themselves, aren’t supposed to be able to pick the judges who are to reach dispositions on the lawsuits. They cannot pick their own judges, but they can attempt to recuse the judges that might rule unfavorably.

Not withstanding the inability to “pick” judges, BP is hoping that U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston will hear the cases. One does not have to be a genius to know that BP wouldn’t place their hopes in Judge Hughes arbitrarily.

Read the Original Article here.