A federal jury in Alabama has delivered a massive $256 million verdict against Washington, D.C.-based human rights attorney Terry Collingsworth, marking the culmination of a legal conflict that has spanned more than two decades and involved allegations of defamation, racketeering, and fabricated testimony.
The verdict represents a
major legal and financial setback for one of the most prominent lawyers known for bringing
international human rights claims against multinational corporations in U.S. courts. The ruling also sends a strong message about the risks attorneys face when courts conclude that litigation tactics crossed legal and ethical boundaries.
Background of the Dispute
The long-running conflict traces back to 2002, when Collingsworth filed lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute accusing coal producer Drummond Company of collaborating with Colombian paramilitary groups responsible for the killings of union leaders near the company’s mining operations in Colombia.
Those cases alleged that Drummond benefited from and supported violent groups to suppress union activity. However, after years of litigation, a federal jury rejected the claims in 2007, finding in favor of Drummond and concluding that the company was not responsible for the alleged murders.
Despite that outcome, the dispute did not end. Drummond later accused Collingsworth of continuing to promote false allegations that harmed the company’s reputation and business relationships abroad.
Drummond’s Defamation and RICO Claims
In 2011, Drummond filed a defamation lawsuit against Collingsworth, arguing that he made false statements to foreign government officials and business partners suggesting that Drummond was linked to paramilitary violence.
The company later expanded its claims to include allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. Drummond argued that Collingsworth and his law firm orchestrated a scheme to recruit and pay witnesses who allegedly provided false testimony to support claims against the company.
According to evidence presented at trial, jurors heard that certain witness payments were labeled as security, travel, or support expenses but were allegedly used to influence testimony. Drummond maintained that these practices amounted to a coordinated effort to
manufacture evidence in support of false claims.
Jury Awards and Trebled Damages
The jury found Collingsworth and his firm liable for both defamation and racketeering violations. Jurors awarded approximately $68 million in damages related to the racketeering claims. Under federal law, RICO damages are automatically tripled, substantially increasing the total award.
In addition, the jury awarded roughly $52 million in compensatory and punitive damages related to defamation. These damages were tied to communications Collingsworth allegedly sent to Dutch government officials and Japanese business partners of Drummond, which the jury concluded contained false and damaging statements.
Combined with trebling under RICO and other awarded damages, the total judgment reached approximately $256 million.
Attorneys for Drummond said the verdict confirms that the company had no ties to illegal armed groups in Colombia and vindicates its long standing position in the dispute.
“This verdict confirms what courts and juries have already found that Drummond has no connection to illegal organizations in Colombia,” said Trey Wells, a lawyer for the company, in public comments following the verdict.
Collingsworth’s Response and Planned Appeal
Collingsworth has said he intends to appeal the verdict. He has consistently denied wrongdoing and has characterized Drummond’s lawsuits as retaliatory efforts designed to intimidate lawyers who bring human rights and corporate accountability cases.
In public statements and a video posted on his firm’s website before the verdict, Collingsworth described the case as an attempt to punish him for pursuing claims against powerful corporate interests. He has argued that the allegations against him lack merit and that the verdict should be overturned on appeal.
Legal experts note that appellate courts will review both the legal standards applied and the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury. However, large jury verdicts, particularly those involving RICO findings, can be difficult to reverse absent clear legal errors.
Broader Impact on Human Rights and Corporate Litigation
Collingsworth has been a leading figure in international human rights litigation in U.S. courts for decades. His work has included high-profile cases against multinational corporations over alleged abuses abroad.
He was also involved in litigation against ExxonMobil related to alleged human rights violations in Indonesia. That case was resolved through a confidential settlement in 2023, just days before it was scheduled to go to trial.
In recent years, several other cases associated with Collingsworth have faced setbacks. In 2024, a federal appeals court rejected a proposed class action seeking to hold major chocolate companies liable for child labor on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast. Courts have also dismissed lawsuits aimed at technology companies over alleged child labor in Congolese cobalt mining operations.
Legal observers say the Drummond verdict could have a chilling effect on future human rights litigation, particularly cases that rely heavily on foreign witnesses, overseas evidence, and allegations involving conflict zones.
Defense-side attorneys may point to the verdict as evidence that courts are increasingly skeptical of claims that depend on testimony from individuals in unstable or high-risk regions, especially where questions are raised about how that testimony was obtained.
Significance for Corporate Defamation and RICO Claims
The size of the judgment underscores the growing use of RICO and defamation claims by corporations seeking to push back against activist-driven lawsuits. Companies facing long-running allegations may increasingly
turn to aggressive counter litigation strategies when they believe false claims have damaged their reputation or business interests.
For Drummond, the verdict represents a decisive victory in a legal fight that has stretched across multiple courts and jurisdictions for more than 20 years.
For Collingsworth, the ruling marks one of the most significant defeats of his legal career and raises serious questions about the future of similar
human rights lawsuits in U.S. courts.
The case is expected to continue through the appeals process, where courts will weigh whether the verdict and damage awards should stand or be modified.
Looking to advance your legal career in a competitive market? Discover thousands of exclusive attorney and legal jobs across top law firms, corporations, and government agencies.
Visit LawCrossing today to explore new legal opportunities and take the next step in your legal career.
