Nearly every state that has filed a climate lawsuit enlisted expensive outside counsel to support its case – except Connecticut.  That changed over the summer, when the state issued a request for proposals seeking outside law firms to “support and add depth” to the case it first filed in 2020. These responses were due in July and as of now, the state has yet to announce a firm.  

On paper, the solicitation looks like a routine procurement. But in context, it’s the latest move in a trend of states leaning on outside counsel to plug gaps in staffing, legal strategy, and national coordination. Connecticut is simply catching up. 

The timing – over five years since Connecticut Attorney General Tong filed the case – highlights a broader pattern in the climate litigation ecosystem. The list of outside counsel in such cases is small, with San Francisco- based plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling serving on the majority of suits. Neighboring Massachusetts turned to Sher Edling late in the game for its suit and, on the other side of the country, California brought them on midway to further a coordinated litigation strategy that – according to AG Bonta – gives them a sharper edge in the courtroom.  

The deadline for responses to the RFP has come and gone, and the Connecticut should be asked: Who applied? Did the state pick a firm? Why hasn’t it been announced? Did the state seek counsel after all these years because they were missing that sharper edge? 

Familiar Faces in the Driver’s Seat 

It’s not hard to see who’s behind the wheel. The case is led inside Attorney General Tong’s office by two Bloomberg-funded “Special Assistant Attorneys General” (SAAGs), a program now under congressional investigation for embedding privately funded attorneys in state offices to pursue climate and environmental litigation.  

Meanwhile, Sher Edling, the San Francisco firm that is likely on the shortlist to win Connecticut’s RFP, remains under congressional scrutiny for its opaque funding sources and coordination with supportive academics. 

Together, they’ve become a staple of the anti-energy playbook: Dark activist money funds “special assistant attorneys general” embedded within AGs’ offices, and simultaneously funds Sher Edling to handle the execution. Despite the tens of millions poured into the litigation campaign, not a single plaintiff has won in court and the list of dismissals only continues to grow. 

Why Private Attorneys? 

Connecticut’s recruitment of outside counsel raises the question: Why bring on expensive private attorneys in the first place?  

Over the summer, the state employee union representing California’s public legal employees asked that question, suing AG Bonta over his decision to hire outside firms to represent California’s climate case.  

In a letter to the union defending his use of private lawyers, AG Bonta said Sher Edling’s hiring was necessary, since the firm is “uniquely positioned to assist the AGO in coordinating with other plaintiffs in California and nationwide, and will do so.”  

The climate litigation campaign has always been a nation-wide, coordinated effort among activists, attorneys, and politicians – AG Bonta’s letter just puts a finer point on it.  

Next Up: Michigan’s Copy-Paste Suit 

Connecticut’s move also comes as other Democratic attorneys general weigh similar actions – most notably Michigan’s Dana Nessel, who’s been teasing a climate lawsuit of her own. During climate week, the plaintiff-recruiting group Center for Climate Integrity claimed Michigan will be filing “soon,” suggesting that activist groups have inside track knowledge of AG Nessel’s plans. 

AG Nessel has already signed contracts with Sher Edling and two other firms, even as the U.S. Department of Justice has moved to block her efforts, warning that such cases threaten to usurp federal authority over energy and environmental policy. 

Bottom Line: Five years after Connecticut filed its climate lawsuit, the state appears to be seeking closer coordination to the network of activist litigators determined to use the courtroom to achieve what they can’t win at the ballot box. Taxpayers deserve to know if the state is hiring dark-money-backed private attorneys to advance its case against the American energy industry.