A recently-released agreement between Bucks County, PA and the private law firm supporting its climate lawsuit reveals that, once again, for-profit attorneys are poised to take a massive chunk of the profits if the County prevails in its case against American energy producers.

According to the contingency fee agreement obtained and made public by Broad and Liberty, in the case of a successful verdict, DiCello Levitt LLP will receive 25 percent of the first potential $100 million recovered, 20 percent of the next $50 million, and 15 percent of any additional dollar over $150 million:

For the public record: Broad + Liberty has obtained the contingency fee schedule for the Bucks County lawsuit against major oil producers like Exxon, BP, etc.

25% of all monies in $0 to $100M range
20% of all monies in $100M to $150M range
15% of all monies in $150M and over pic.twitter.com/fkMKIMH0ir

— Broad + Liberty (@BroadAndLiberty) January 13, 2025

This means that a whopping 25 percent of the county’s climate suit winnings could go to enriching left-wing lawyers. DiCello Levitt is also supporting copy-paste lawsuits on behalf of Maine, Chicago, and expectedly Michigan, but Bucks County has seemingly given the firm the best terms compared to the other publicly available agreements.

This development is bound to prompt additional questions about Bucks County’s lawsuit, which has lacked transparency from the start. In fact, when the lawsuit was filed, the County didn’t even hold a legally-required public meeting, choosing instead to blindside its constituents with a frivolous suit designed to undermine Pennsylvania’s robust energy industry. If they had been privy to the County’s decision-making, Bucks County residents might have rightfully questioned why their county government was so eager sign away potential millions to an out-of-state plaintiffs’ firm.

Conflict of Interests? “No Problem,” Says Bucks

Similar to Chicago’s agreement, Bucks County acknowledges that DiCello Levitt is engaged in a conflict of interest by representing other plaintiffs engaged in very similar litigation. This is because if the firm succeeds in “bankrupting” the oil company defendants in other cases before Bucks County reaches a trial, the county could be left with nothing.

However, also just like Chicago, Bucks County decided to do away with this concern, and hire the firm anyways:

“The County understands that the Firm would not take on this engagement if it required the Firm to forego or withdraw from representations like those described above […]

“The County has determined that it is in the County’s best interest to waive such a potential or actual conflict of interest resulting from damages collected from defendants in other Similar Climate Litigation prosecuted by the Firm.” (emphasis added)

In waiving the conflict of interest and acknowledging that the suit could result in no damages at all, Bucks County is putting taxpayers’ resources at risk and shows political motivations are behind the lawsuit.

Private Law Firm Intends to Exploit Jury’s “Biases” and “Plot Their Emotional Reactions”

Concerningly, Dicello Levitt’s trial strategy reveals that the firm does not view litigation as a purely fact-based exercise. This is particularly notable as DiCello Levitt is partnering with other law firms, including Hausfeld and Congressional investigated Sher Edling, in Maine and Michigan’s anticipated case.

Specifically, according to Law Dragon, Dicello Levitt has pioneered a “state-of-the-art” Trial Center where attorneys practice using “bias” and “emotional reactions” to undermine methodical, rational arguments. But don’t just take our word for it, the firm’s managing partner, Bobby DiCello has said as much himself:

“We’re looking at the context and the patterns that exist in their brains from their culture and life’s history, We plot their emotional reactions, then tweak our presentation of the facts for the next group until we get that revelation that says, ‘You’re with us.’” (emphasis added)

Considering that DiCello has also claimed that “argument is no longer a lawyer’s first and primary tool,” it’s clear that his firm does not view litigation as a means to reach a fair, impartial decision. Rather, the firm’s need to engage in these tactics to achieve their desired result – the destruction of the American energy industry – shows in itself that these lawsuits are inherently political.

Bucks Isn’t the Only Place That’s Made An Agreement

In addition to Chicago and Bucks County, several other plaintiffs have signed onto contingency fee agreements with private, for-profit law firms to support their campaign to “take down” the American energy industry. Plaintiffs including Washington, DC, Chicago, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and San Francisco, have made their agreements publicly available after facing public records requests. However, the financial arrangements of dozens more local and state lawsuits remain a black box, and many have fought to keep the agreements secret.

In every jurisdiction where a climate lawsuit has been filed, government plaintiffs owe taxpayers the answers to several key questions in the name of transparency: How much do outside attorneys stand to gain? Are these other jurisdictions also acknowledging and waiving conflicts of interest? And perhaps most important, how much taxpayer money is being used to attempt this anti-energy vendetta?

Bottom line: Bucks County’s cushy contingency fee agreement adds to the piles of evidence that climate lawsuits against America’s energy industry aren’t about climate change or helping citizens, but about  money and politics. Moreover, the numerous other jurisdictions that have failed to release any details about their financial agreements to their taxpayers continue to prove that while the climate litigation campaign may be great at generating flashy headlines, it’s terrible at transparency.