Barbier was having none of it. From the start of the hearing, he constantly badgered Clark — a lawyer from (uh-oh) Washington, D.C. — demanding proof that there was something wrong with the claims process. “Where is your evidence?” he demanded. “Respond to my question!” Barbier went through a litany of what is required to get a claim approved to show Clark that the process was incorruptible, even if Juneau had employed a few allegedly corrupt lawyers. Indeed, at one point he objected to Clark’s use of the word “corruption.” “Let’s use another word that is not as inflammatory,” he said.

Ah, but then it was time for Juneau’s lawyer, Rick Stanley, to speak, and the mood in the courtroom suddenly changed. I had interviewed Juneau the day before, and he had told me that he was essentially a bystander in disputes between BP and the plaintiffs’ lawyers, willing to do whatever the court instructed him. Yet here was his lawyer — a Louisianian, it goes without saying — making the plaintiffs’ arguments for them: That BP’s money should continue to flow to claimants. Juneau had done his own investigation, he said, showing that no claims had been tainted and that there was no evidence of other problems. After a series of softball questions from Barbier, Stanley took his seat.

What was left for Stephen Herman, representing the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, to argue? Not a thing! So, instead, he simply stood at the podium, while Barbier made a speech that had nothing to do with the case at hand. He praised Juneau, and complained about those in the news media who had denigrated him. He went on a long rant about how Juneau had come to be chosen. Later, after he had kicked Clark around a little more, he denied the motion, made yet another speech about the wonderful Patrick Juneau, and described recent remarks by Bob Dudley, BP’s chief executive, who had gone on TV to complain about the settlement, as “offensive.” He blamed BP for spreading “misinformation” about a settlement that, it was now clear, he was deeply invested in. He, and I should add, all the Louisiana lawyers in his courtroom.

“The court reminds the parties that it retains exclusive jurisdiction” over the BP case, said Barbier in conclusion. That sounded like a threat to me.

But what do I know? I’m from New York.