Bipartisan opposition from the Baltimore County Council sank a proposed climate lawsuit backed by the county office of law and the Sher Edling law firm after members criticized such an approach as merely enriching plaintiffs’ attorneys while providing no meaningful public good.

It was a quick demise for a potential lawsuit after the county office of law pitched the idea during a public county council meeting on November 15 where it was heavily criticized by a Democrat and two Republicans, as Energy In Depth noted. By the evening of November 18, the proposed contract with outside counsel had been withdrawn, likely due to the sound rejection from both sides of the aisle The Baltimore Sun reported:

“Baltimore County’s law department has decided to drop its request to enter into a contract with a law firm that would have explored suing fossil fuel companies over climate change and its impact on the county. The county said it decided to drop the matter at the request of the law firm, Sher Edling.”

Sher Edling is the San Francisco-based law firm that is representing states and municipalities in more than a dozen climate lawsuits around the country. Reporting from Fox News has revealed that the firm has received financial support from Leonardo DiCaprio and other wealthy foundations despite representing plaintiffs on a contingency fee basis where the law firm stands to gain tens of millions of dollars if damages are awarded in just one case.

When discussing the merits of the case, Baltimore Councilmember Tom Quirk, a Democrat, didn’t specifically mention Sher Edling, but he implied that the law firm used familiar tactics:

“I know attorneys are always hungry for fees and generating fees. And, you know, basically will look under any rock to try to find legal fees anywhere, looking for a low-hanging fruit and basically that’s what a lot of these things are about is feeding legions of attorneys, in my view.

“… but I’m also not very inclined to jump on some of these ambulance-chasing type of legal strategies out there nationwide that I think often are more about feeding law firms, as opposed to you know, really doing good work.” (emphasis added)

Quirk also said that climate litigation would only increase energy costs for consumers:

“I think the County Council needs to remember that these types of things aren’t just like paid for with some magical pot of gold. Often a lot of these costs, if successful, get passed on to the consumer. They get passed on to regular average people that really often wind up paying the price, through indirect cost.” (emphasis added)

Councilmember Wade Kach, a Republican, echoed the remarks from Quirk that the litigation appeared to be about generating legal fees:

“I guess I don’t want to see a situation where you have a private law firm with the idea, ‘Oh my gosh, we can get these huge legal fees by going after every company, every producer of petroleum or whatever.’ This is the part that concerns me because the government is responsible for some of the problem. Government really is [responsible], because the government did not have standards in place, which would have protected the environment. So, how do you hold a private company responsible for something that a government didn’t really take proper action.”

“… I don’t want to see a situation where Baltimore County is just going after companies to get money, and that’s the only purpose of what we’re doing. I know nothing about this law firm. I hope that’s not their MO that they go just go after any company that they think they might realize legal fees from it.”

Councilmember Todd Crandall, another Republican, argued that it makes no sense to sue oil companies when the county government needs energy to power its operations. Echoing his colleagues, he emphasized that it all appeared to be a “money grab”:

“I can’t fathom why we’re considering suing oil companies when we are a customer, and we need their product to run County government. Do our trash haulers use gas in their trucks? Yes, of course, they do. So, I don’t understand how we enter into a lawsuit against a provider of a product that we have to negotiate our price with.

“So, it’s beyond me how we’re looking at this.  I’m not disparaging your work or your research, or your choice of firm, [but] this seems to me like it’s a bit of a money grab.” (emphasis added)

Bottom Line:  Baltimore’s bipartisan rejection of potential climate litigation – before it was even introduced – is another failure for a movement that has largely suffered defeats when judged on the merits (like in New York City), as councilmembers from both sides of the aisle correctly identified.