Congress Probing Lawyer Repping Deep Blue County In $51,000,000,000 Climate Suit

Congress opened an investigation into the lead attorney’s conflict of interest representing Multnomah County in its climate lawsuit against Chevron.

Roger Worthington, lead attorney representing heavily Democratic Multnomah County in its $51 billion climate lawsuit against major oil companies, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for a closed-door hearing. Judiciary Committee documents accuse Worthington of failing to disclose his involvement in two studies published in Nature magazine as well as an op-ed published in a local Oregon news outlet.

Judiciary Committee documents accuse Worthington of failing to disclose his involvement in two studies published in Nature magazine and also an op-ed published in a local Oregon news outlet.

“As we argued at the hearing in Portland last month, this case should be dismissed because it asserts claims that are far beyond the reach of state tort law as they are based on interstate and global emissions and barred by the federal constitution and Clean Air Act,” Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, counsel for Chevron Corporation told the DCNF.

Worthington, The House Judiciary committee, and Rep. Issa’s spokesperson did not respond to immediate comment.

“And the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear argument on these very issues in the Boulder case, which could have direct implications on all the climate lawsuits, including in Multnomah County,” Boutrous concluded.

The Boulder County and City of Boulder’s 2018 lawsuit against Suncor Energy, sought damages over the company’s alleged role in climate change. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court who agreed to hear it in February.

“Lead counsel for Plaintiff—Roger Worthington—has failed to affirmatively disclose to the Court that he has supported or otherwise influenced at least two climate change studies, published in Nature in April and May 2025, that Plaintiff and its experts cite and rely upon as though they are independent works of scientific research, when they are not. Such misconduct threatens to work what the United States Supreme Court has deemed a fraud on the court,” according to the Chevron’s initial filing.

Chevron argued the alleged nondisclosure extended beyond the scientific studies themselves. In its motion, the company contended Worthington engaged in a broader pattern of failing to disclose his role in matters related to the litigation.

“Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to disclose his involvement with the two Nature studies cited by Plaintiff and its experts does not appear to be an isolated instance, but part of a broader pattern confirming the lack of disclosure is intentional,” the document said. “Just days before filing Plaintiff’s opposition briefs here, Mr. Worthington authored op-eds in Oregon newspapers promoting the merits of this very lawsuit—without disclosing that he was, in fact, lead counsel for Plaintiff.”

Chevron pointed to opinion pieces Worthington wrote in a local Oregon newspaper, where Worthington described himself to readers as a public citizen owner of a brewery, briefly mentioning that he was an attorney.

“Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel signed the op-eds as merely the owner of a local brewery. While he later was forced to reveal his role as counsel, after a reader raised questions about the propriety of his non-disclosure,” the document said. “Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to identify his role as counsel at the outset created the misleading impression of an impartial third party rather than an advocate with a direct, monetary interest in the outcome of this case.”

Based on those allegations, Chevron asked the court to impose sanctions, including striking the studies from the record and permitting additional fact-finding into Worthington’s involvement.

“To address these issues, Chevron respectfully requests that the Court strike all references to the two studies supported or otherwise influenced by Mr. Worthington, and, to fully vindicate the Court’s interest in the fair administration of justice, consider ordering expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing to determine the full extent of Plaintiff’s counsel’s misconduct,” the document said.

“Courts have long recognized that concealing a party’s involvement in the development of purportedly neutral studies or research that they then cite to the court without disclosure harms the integrity of the legal process and constitutes a fraud on the court,” the suit said.

The congressional inquiry stems from Multnomah county’s lawsuit seeking $51 billion from major oil companies over damages allegedly caused by the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave.

Chevron previously argued in Oregon state court that Worthington failed to disclose his role in developing scientific research later cited in the suit. Although the judge declined to strike the studies, he ruled they would carry “absolutely no weight” because the disclosure issues, the judge ruled.