New details have emerged about how the California attorney general’s office is handling its ongoing climate lawsuit – and it doesn’t look good for the state.  

California is paying up to $1,241 per hour to the politically connected law firm Lieff Cabraser to serve as outside counsel, despite the firm having little experience in climate litigation. It’s an odd choice for such a high profile case, but recent reporting from the Free Beacon may shed some light on the firm’s selection. 

Lieff Cabraser has donated over $5 million almost exclusively to Democrats over the last five years, according to the outlet, including $100,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) since 2023, the year California Attorney General Rob Bonta began serving on the organization’s executive committee.  

Documents that emerged thanks to a recent lawsuit brought by the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) also show Sher Edling – the dark money-financed law firm that’s under Congressional investigation – was retained by California earlier this year and is billing by the hour, which is a marked difference from the contingency fee agreements the firm has entered into in other climate lawsuits. 

Meanwhile, state-employed attorneys argued in their recent lawsuit they were fully capable of handling the case – and sought to have the outside counsel agreements invalidated. A Sacramento judge ultimately ruled against the union earlier this month, and the union told Politico they will “strategically pursue available options in furtherance of its opposition.” 

As details continue to come out, here are the key questions that demand answers: 

• How is it fiscally responsible for California to pay over $1,200/hour to Lieff Cabraser partners during the state’s massive budget crunch? 

California is facing one of the largest budget shortfalls in its history. State legislators recently attempted to close a $12 billion budget deficit with additional borrowing and cuts to what many argue are essential services.  

Yet, under a contract quietly awarded in 2023, Lieff Cabraser partners are charging the state up to $1,241 per hour, with associates billing up to $544 per hour. The initial contract was worth up to $1.5 million for just ten months of work – and it has since been renewed, suggesting the state has already spent far more than the initial $1.5 million. Sher Edling, meanwhile, is charging between $175 and $625/hour. 

The contrast between these soaring legal bills and the impact to the state’s already struggling coffers has not gone unnoticed. The president of CASE, Tim O’Connor, put it bluntly in a statement to Politico: 

“We remain steadfast in our commitment to oppose all illegal, wasteful and exorbitant outside law firm contracts,” O’Connor said. “The waste of the taxpayers’ money at a time of a claimed financial and budget crisis is egregious and will not continue unchecked.”  

Taxpayers, meanwhile, are left to wonder whether this lawsuit is really the best use of scarce resources, or if this is just another example of politics taking priority over public interest. 

• Was Lieff Cabraser selected because of its legal qualifications – or its political connections? 

Despite being a high-profile plaintiff firm, Lieff Cabraser has no meaningful experience litigating public nuisance climate cases on behalf of government entities. The firm is best known for its work in mass torts, personal injury, and consumer class actions cases, areas far afield from California’s climate case. 

Meanwhile, as the Free Beacon reports, Lieff Cabraser has made over $5 million of campaign contributions exclusively to Democrats since 2020. Since 2023 $100,000 of these contributions went to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), the same year AG Bonta began serving on the group’s executive committee. Overall the firm has contributed $370,000 to DAGA since 2017.  

Lieff Cabraser also contributed $5,500 to San Francisco State Sen. Scott Wiener in 2024, the primary sponsor of legislation this year that would have allowed insurers to pursue claims against oil and gas companies for wildfire damage using legal theories similar to the state’s ongoing climate lawsuit. 

The timing and scale of these contributions, coupled with the firm’s lack of relevant case experience, suggest political connections, rather than expertise, may have guided the state’s decision to hire Lieff Cabraser for this lucrative contract.  

It, at any rate, is a decision that demands closer scrutiny, particularly when coupled with the fact that the attorney general’s office now has brought a second firm to support the case, which brings us to the third question…  

• Why was Sher Edling initially left out of the California case, and why are they now being paid by the hour in California – rather than on contingency like in other climate cases? 

The California AG’s office made very clear in a March, 2025 letter to the state attorney union that they deemed Sher Edling’s assistance to be critical for its climate lawsuit. Why did they take so long to figure that out? 

Sher Edling has led the charge pushing frivolous climate cases across the country, typically operating under contingency fee arrangements, meaning they only get paid if they win. Such arrangements themselves are by no means immune to questions about political point scoring, but they are typically less expensive up front for taxpayers.    

But in California, Sher Edling is being paid by the hour. This is a highly unusual arrangement, especially for a firm that already rakes in millions from liberal dark money groups. So why are taxpayers picking up the tab for Sher Edling in California, unlike other states?  

As EID Climate documented previously, Sher Edling’s employees have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats running for office, including to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who spearheaded a Congressional investigation into oil companies with the express purpose of supporting climate lawsuits.  

Since 2023, the firm has also donated $49,000 to DAGA – the same year AG Bonta began serving on DAGA’s executive committee. According to ProPublica records, Sher Edling had not previously contributed to DAGA prior to November, 2023. That fall 2023 contribution of $24,000 to DAGA occurred just two months after AG Bonta filed California’s climate case, and around the same time Lieff Cabraser’s agreement with the state was announced. 

So why did California choose Lieff Cabraser over Sher Edling initially – and why did the state only retain Sher Edling in March of 2025, over a year after the case was filed?  

Bottom Line: At a time of deep budget cuts and a historic $12 billion deficit, the state is paying millions to a politically connected law firm with little climate litigation experience – while also paying a shady dark money-funded law firm to sue American energy producers. Something is amiss in the California Attorney General’s office, and taxpayers deserve answers.