Less than two weeks before the midterm election, Sher Edling – the plaintiffs’ law firm that represents dozens of states and municipalities that have filed climate lawsuits against the American energy industry – donated $25,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), the Daily Caller reported.
You don’t have to squint to see the connection: DAGA exists to elect Democratic state attorneys general, who frequently hire Sher Edling on climate cases. In turn, Sher Edling works on a contingency fee basis where the firm could secure multi-million dollar payouts if those AGs secure a favorable verdict against the industry.
For example, in Minnesota, where Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a climate lawsuit in 2020, Sher Edling has an agreement in place to receive “16.67% of the first $150 million recovered, and 7.5% for any portion greater than $150 million.”
Sher Edling, which is funded by activists including Hollywood star Leo DiCaprio and is under Congressional investigation, has done this before. Energy In Depth noted last year that Sher Edling gave $49,000 to DAGA starting in November 2023, the same year California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined DAGA’s executive committee and filed the state’s climate lawsuit.
Same Firm, Same Pattern
The donation fits a pattern of influence that Energy In Depth has tracked for years, including Michael Burger, who is of counsel at Sher Edling, the executive director of Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and served as reviewer of the first climate science chapter in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Burger also worked “behind the scenes” to write the chapter despite the FJC directing him not to be involved because of the obvious conflict of interest.
The FJC pulled the chapter in February after 27 state attorneys general objected to what should be a unbiased, objective document for judges being heavily influenced by the plaintiffs attorneys.
In April, the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Sher Edling partner Vic Sher demanding the firm’s communications with the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which runs climate seminars for judges, and the names of every funder behind its climate cases.
Despite all this evidence, the National Academies of Sciences co-published the manual and kept the chapter online for six more months. It relented on Aug. 7 and announced an independent review of the process behind the chapter. Its own president has since admitted that the authors had closer ties to the plaintiffs than to the defense.
EID Climate noted that the Boulder case before the Supreme Court is forcing Colorado Democrats to answer for their positions on energy. Sher Edling’s check gives voters one more question to ask their incoming attorney general.
Bottom Line: Sher Edling’s business model means the firm gets paid when Democratic attorneys general sue energy companies and win. It’s Of Counsel shaped the science the judges read without disclosing his role, and Congress wants to know who funds the firm. Now the firm funds the committee that elects the officials who hand it contingency contracts. Voters deserve to know what Sher Edling expects for its money.
