Ethics and Conflicts — "DePlorable" Lawyer Band Conflict Alleged, Judicial Campaign Contribution Conflicts Ethics Opinion, Investigating Judicial Financial Stakes

“Judges Overseeing Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial Stakes in Oil Companies” —

“A dozen federal judges have presided over some of the most consequential environmental lawsuits in Louisiana’s history despite having investments in or business connections to the petrochemical companies being sued, an investigation by Floodlight, WWNO/WRKF, and Type Investigations has found.”
“Their ties took various forms: holding stock or corporate bonds while presiding over the cases, having previously worked as attorneys for the oil companies, receiving large sums of money from investments in the companies prior to hearing the cases, leasing mineral rights to defendants, or having a spouse who was a partner at a law firm defending the oil companies.”
“But even when they appear to have direct conflicts of interest, almost none of those judges broke the ethical rules governing the judiciary.”
“‘To the extent they’re following the rules, they can’t really be faulted,’ said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and an expert in judicial disqualification. ‘But from a systemic standpoint, do you really want judges to be drawn from a pool of people who have a stake in the industry?’”
“Examples include:”
- “Judge Carl Barbier of the US Eastern District Court of Louisiana held over $100,000 of corporate bonds in five oil companies while presiding over four different cases in which one or more of those companies was a defendant.”
- “Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown, of the same court, reported that she or her husband traded tens of thousands of dollars of Exxon and Chevron stock while she presided over a case in which both companies were being sued.”
- “Judge Jerry Smith of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of oil companies in one of the cases after receiving over $100,000 in mineral royalties since 2013, when the litigation first arrived in federal court. “
“Judges must be impartial in their rulings and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in practice, that standard is poorly enforced. The judiciary itself decides in most cases what constitutes a conflict, and its current guidelines state that judges may even receive payments from defendants while a case is ongoing—so long as the judge’s ruling will not impact the amount they get paid.”
“In Louisiana, where many judges profit from petrochemical investments, the question of whether the courts can be trusted to fairly judge the oil industry has enormous stakes.”
“An investigation by Floodlight, WWNO/WRKF, and Type Investigations found that 12 of the 46 federal judges who have already made rulings in the coastal damage lawsuits had investments in or business connections to petrochemical companies that were defendants in the cases.”
“Since 2013, nine of these judges have collected nearly $1 million in income from their investments in the defendants, according to an analysis of their financial disclosures. That income was gained during the period while the cases have been litigated in federal courts, though not exclusively while the cases were on each of the judges’ dockets.”
“It’s difficult to determine if and how financial ties influenced judicial decisions—and many of these judges, like Barbier, actually ruled against the oil companies. But even the appearance of impropriety can undermine trust in the rule of law.”
“‘It’s only natural for the public to be increasingly suspicious about whether those judges are a little too friendly with the industry to be impartial arbiters,’ said Geyh.”
“Even beyond the direct ties to the defendants, judges’ investments in the fossil fuel industry more broadly could raise eyebrows. The outcome of these coastal damage cases could impact the industry at large, with the potential to establish a road map for anyone seeking to hold oil companies accountable for environmental destruction.”

“Judicial Ethics Opinion 25-160” —

“Digest: A judge’s knowledge of an attorney’s or law firm’s contributions to the judge’s prior campaign for election to non-judicial office does not necessarily require disclosure or disqualification in all instances involving that attorney or law firm, but the judge should consider all relevant factors in reaching a conclusion about potential recusal.”
“Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.5(A)(1)(h); 100.5(A)(2); 100.5(A)(5); Opinions 23-41; 10-135; 08-40; 04-106; 02-06.”
“Opinion: A new judge, who had previously campaigned for election to a non-judicial public office within the past year, asks about his/her ethical obligations regarding attorneys that appear in front of him/her who either donated, or whose law firms donated, to the judge’s prior non-judicial campaign. Since the prior campaign was for a non-judicial position, the judge, as a candidate, knew who contributed to the campaign and often personally solicited contributions from donors.”
“A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). In particular, a judge must not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial decision-making or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]). Further, a judge is disqualified in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned’ (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).”
“We have recognized, in other contexts, that a ‘candidate for non-judicial office is not subject to the same exacting standards’ as a judicial candidate (Opinion 08-40). For example, a judicial candidate may contribute to their own campaign as permitted under the Election Law (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][2]), but must not otherwise personally solicit or accept campaign contributions from any source (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][h]; 100.5[A][2]). Instead, a judge who wishes to accept campaign contributions from others must form a committee of responsible persons to ‘solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions and support’ on the candidate’s behalf (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][5]). Additionally, we have advised that the judicial candidate should be shielded from knowing the identities of contributors and the amounts contributed (see Opinions 10-135; 02-06).”
“Nonetheless, we have advised that in situations where a judge inadvertently learns of an attorney’s contribution to his/her judicial campaign, that fact, standing alone, does not mandate the judge’s disqualification. ‘In and of itself, the judge’s knowledge of a contribution, does not automatically give rise to an inference of partiality’ (Opinion 04-106; see also Opinions 23-41; 10-135).”
“After considering these or other appropriate factors, ‘if the judge is confident he/she can be fair and impartial, no disqualification is required. If, on the other hand, in his/her discretion, and having considered all relevant factors, the judge concludes that the specific circumstances might give rise to a publicly perceived appearance of partiality,’ the judge should ‘disclose and recuse, subject to remittal’ (Opinion 04-106).”

“Kennedy Center Lawyer Accused of Conflict of Interest in Booking His Band” —

“A high-powered lawyer named Elliot Berke, who serves as the general counsel at the Kennedy Center, has been accused of attempting to book his own dad rock cover band, The DePlorables, for a performance at the center’s Speakeasy lounge. However, the Kennedy Center staff reportedly cited concerns about a potential conflict of interest and the band’s lack of professionalism, leading to the booking being denied. There are conflicting reports about whether Berke was actually invited to play but declined.”
“This incident is part of a larger narrative around the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Kennedy Center, including installing allies in key positions and plans to rename the building. The attempted booking of The DePlorables and another band, Yes, showcases the potential influence and conflicts of interest that can arise when personal interests collide with institutional roles.”
“Berke, the Kennedy Center’s general counsel, allegedly tried to book his band The DePlorables, which he describes as the ‘worst band you’ve ever heard,’ for a performance at the center’s Speakeasy lounge. However, the Kennedy Center staff reportedly denied the booking due to concerns about a potential conflict of interest and the band’s lack of professionalism. There are conflicting reports about whether Berke was actually invited to play but declined.”
“The alleged incident occurred in April 2026.”