Nearly six years after filing its climate lawsuit, Connecticut has finally done what dozens of other states and cities have already done: hire Sher Edling, the San Francisco law firm at the center of a coordinated, dark-money-funded campaign to sue American energy companies out of existence.
The move comes nearly a year after Connecticut issued a request for proposals seeking outside counsel to help bolster its case.
Publicly accessible documents list Sher Edling as a state contractor as of at least April 30, 2026. However, the firm was not listed in the docket until May, when the state filed a motion for permission for a Sher Edling attorney to appear pro hac vice.
For Connecticut taxpayers, the lack of transparency raises obvious questions. Why bring in Sher Edling now? Who else applied for the work? And what financial arrangement did the state agree to?
Part of a Broader Campaign
Sher Edling is no stranger to the national climate lawfare campaign. The firm serves as outside counsel in dozens of nearly copy-and-paste climate lawsuits across the country.
The firm is also funded by the very same activist donors bankrolling the climate lawfare movement. As EID Climate has previously documented, public records and IRS documents show that millions of dollars from major foundations and donors was routed through entities like the Resources Legacy Fund and the New Venture Fund’s Collective Action Fund to finance the litigation campaign, including Sher Edling’s work.
That raises an obvious transparency problem. Sher Edling is not simply a private law firm taking on a government contract. It is part of a broader litigation apparatus backed by activist funders, legal advocacy groups and public officials pursuing similar cases across the country.
Despite continued setbacks for the plaintiffs in court, IRS disclosures show the funding network behind this litigation remains well financed. In 2024, the New Venture Fund gave Sher Edling more than $2.3 million, while Tides Foundation’s 2024 tax filing shows another $314,000 grant to the firm.
Follow the Money
Taxpayers are in the dark on what the final payout arrangement with Connecticut looks like, especially if the firm was retained on contingency, but we can look to other jurisdictions for an idea.
A contingency fee agreement with San Francisco entitled Sher Edling to 25 percent of the first $100 million a potential award, 15% of the amount between $100-$150 million, and 7.5% of any remaining amount over $150 million awarded. Similarly, in the State of Minnesota lawsuit, Sher Edling reached an agreement with the State where the firm would receive 16.67% of the first $150 million awarded in a ruling, and 7.5% for any part greater than $150 million.
However, some plaintiffs have refused to disclose how much it will pay to Sher Edling if the court awards the city a favorable verdict. For example, the City of Annapolis withheld documents with information on the contingency fee agreement, in turn blocking taxpayers from knowing how much the firm stands to profit from the state’s lawsuit.
With dozens of these lawsuits filed around the country, Sher Edling has collectively been eyeing hundreds of millions of dollars of payouts for their lawfare campaign against energy companies.
Bottom Line:
If there were any doubts about the independence of Connecticut in its climate case, the state’s decision to enlist Sher Edling as outside counsel reflects close coordination with the broader network of activists running the climate litigation campaign throughout the country. Taxpayers deserve to know who else applied, why the state enlisted an out-of-state law firm with deep ties to activists, and how much the case against the American energy industry is costing.
