How Corrupt Are Your Courts? Too Corrupt To Be Fair?

In complex transnational litigation, ensuring the rights of all parties is especially challenging. Consider the following situation: A plaintiff brings a lawsuit against a US multinational in US court, alleging wrongful conduct in some foreign country; the defendant corporation moves to dismiss the case on the ground that the courts of the country where the alleged conduct took place are a more appropriate forum for adjudicating the suit, and the plaintiff should therefore be required to pursue the suit there; but the plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the foreign country’s courts are so corrupt that it would be impossible to get a fair trial. What should the US court do when confronted with that sort of situation?

The technical legal term for a motion to dismiss a case because the plaintiff ought to file the suit in a different (and more convenient) judicial forum is the forum non conveniens motion. To successfully win on such a motion in a US federal court, the defendant must convince the court that an alternative forum would provide “basic fairness.” When the alternative forum is the judiciary of a foreign country, plaintiffs sometimes try to oppose these motions by pointing to judicial corruption in the foreign forum. But as one court highlighted, “the argument that the alternative forum is too corrupt to be adequate does not enjoy a particularly good track record.” Indeed, as I noted in my previous post on the Chevron-Ecuador litigation, the district judge in that case rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Ecuadorian judicial corruption made it impossible to get a fair trial in Ecuador, remarking that “the courts of the United States are properly reluctant to assume that the courts of a sister democracy are unable to dispense justice.” Even when confronted with clear and undisputed evidence of corruption in a foreign court, US courts have generally been unwilling to accept this as a sufficient reason to keep the case in US court. (In one case a US court reaffirmed a forum non conveniens decision even after the plaintiff successfully bribed a Mexican judge to have the case sent back to the US court.) Consistent with this deferential approach, there are very few cases where a US court has found a foreign forum inadequate due to credible allegations of widespread judicial corruption. (There are admittedly a handful of such cases, including Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas, Ltd., in which the court found that the extensive delay, unreliability, and general corruption of the Indian judiciary made it an inadequate forum for the plaintiff.)

By contrast, other jurisdictions take allegations of foreign judicial corruption more seriously as a reason not to dismiss a lawsuit and insist that it remain in the forum of the plaintiff’s choice. Notably, although the forum non conveniens analysis is very similar in US and Canadian courts, Canadian courts have been more willing to find foreign forums inadequate because of pervasive corruption. For example, in Norex Petroleum Limited v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, a US court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds, while the Canadian court took jurisdiction, denying the defendant’s forum non conveniens motion in light of the Canadian court’s finding that—even though every other factor weighed heavily in favor of Russia as the better forum—extensive judicial corruption in Russia would prevent the plaintiff from accessing a fair and impartial court. It’s certainly not the case that Canadian courts have been consistently receptive to these sorts of arguments—for example, a recent Canadian ruling found Guatemala an appropriate forum despite significant corruption concerns—but the contrast between Canada and the US demonstrates that the US courts’ “see no evil” approach is far from inevitable.

Although it may be helpful for the purposes of international comity for courts to presume that foreign judiciaries are fair, and there are legitimate reasons to dismiss a case in favor a foreign forum (such as easier access to evidence and witnesses), the reluctance of US courts to accept credible allegations of judicial corruption as a reason to deny a forum non conveniens motion likely goes too far. Respect for foreign courts is a good thing in principle, but in practice it can undermine the ability of plaintiffs to get a fair hearing. US courts should hesitate before dismissing cases to foreign forums when there are plausible claims of corruption for two reasons: 

  • First, when plaintiffs forcefully argue that their claims will not get an adequate hearing due to judicial corruption, we should take those allegations seriously. After all, a court system susceptible to bribery or other improper influence cannot be fair and impartial. If we believe, as the Canadian court in Norex Petroleum did, that “[n]o litigant should have to run the risk that the court hearing the dispute might be corrupt,” the value of plaintiff’s access to justice and a fair trial should be weighed more heavily than concerns about international comity.
  • Second, by treating the corruption of a foreign forum with the level of seriousness that the impact of corruption can have on the fairness and integrity of a courtroom, the US judiciary could take a strong stand against judicial corruption, and thereby play a more active, albeit indirect, role in global anticorruption efforts.

That said, even if the standard of review were adjusted, courts would still need to devise a reliable way to assess claims of foreign judicial corruption. Both US and Canadian courts currently rely on a haphazard mix of expert affidavits and foreign office country reports, which most judges are not well-equipped to evaluate, and which tends to produce inconsistent outcomes. Expert affidavits in particular are particularly open to subjective interpretations that produce inconsistent outcomes across court systems (in Norex, the US court based its ruling, in part, on the credibility of the defendant’s expert over that of the plaintiff’s). Instead, rather than depend on plaintiffs and defendants to provide whatever evidence they think would be most persuasive, courts should clarify that they will consider only a narrower and more standardized set of tools for evaluating allegations of foreign judicial corruption. Consistent with the American judiciary’s deference to the executive in international matters, eliminating the role of expert witnesses entirely and relying on US State Department assessments could provide courts with a consistent doctrinal approach (though this might actually make these assessments even more defendant friendly). Alternatively, courts could rely on an international ranking or establish a threshold level that judiciaries need to meet on the World Justice Project’s rule of law score.

American courts pride themselves on their ability to provide adequate protections to litigants while maximizing administrability and consistency. Current forum non conveniens jurisprudence fails to ensure a fair hearing for plaintiffs and is frequently inconsistent and unclear. If judicial corruption is a serious enough concern that the American Bar Association recently launched a judicial integrity initiative, and American courts consider impartiality and reliability to be important systemic values, then courts should standardize they way they assess the adequacy of a foreign forum and weigh corruption allegations more heavily when considering forum non conveniens motions in the context of transnational litigation.

3 thoughts on “How Corrupt Are Your Courts? Too Corrupt To Be Fair?

  1. Thanks for the great post Travis. I’m left wondering about two things. Firstly, are there other kinds of cases for which the judiciary is deferential to State Department reports? Or international organization rankings like the World Justice Project’s? Perhaps the former, but I imagine a few of the Justices on the Supreme Court would be apoplectic if they saw a federal court rely on an IO’s rankings.

    Secondly, you mention in passing that the plaintiff’s access to justice should be given more weight than comity concerns. Do you have any recommendations for how to balance them? I’m in favor of judges explicitly discussing their relative values for the case before them, but I think many would consider the two to be apples and oranges.

  2. I am curious to what extent parties are able t use contracting to preempt the use of potentially corrupt jurisdictions. It would imagine that the failure to block forum non conveniens motions in the U.S. has either led to additional contractual language surrounding jurisdiction or encouraged more parties to turn to arbitration rather than risk getting mired in a corrupt jurisdiction.

  3. How Corrupt Are Your Courts? Too Corrupt To Be Fair?

    -I am really appreciated with this post from Travis. ‘Court’ the very name is enough to understand – what is CORRUPTION. I have very limited idea about the writings and article referring ‘Court’. But abundant articles are there to criticize the legal stories around this world.
    However, in this opportunity, I have to say some basics about ‘Court’. In democratic development court is the final institution to stamp against a complain within a constitutional purview of a sovereign country. Any fail in judiciary is also a final rescue from a criminal act of any level, and on the contrary, an innocent may be convicted for punishment, even to hang.
    Such a systemic-game is the major weapons of political leaders of democracy. That means a open ‘Hub of CORRUPTION’.
    On the said perspectives, so many bla- bla-bla/s are without any scientific meaning to come to a conclusion or solve. As per humanitarian point of view, justice must be open to all of mankind. But the total system is money-oriented, first. Then anyone of no-money is not entitle for judgment at all. Again, when one is enough of needful money, then competition arrives with manipulation of documents and proofs. When there is sufficient documents or proofs, then scale of argument makes major role for final court order. It is just in a nut-shell, actually it is a “Mahabharat”.
    All these steps are involved of a number of peoples who are well trained and motivated to earn money in exchange of their activities- within legal part and outside of legal part.
    It is completely irrespective of any country’s constitutional boundaries. Now there is the more sophisticated play-ground to change the judicial modification by direct application of governmental power, which is overall beyond of legal institution.
    Why, why, why such meaningless arguments are being considering for scientific articles or comments??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.