Climate Law Firm Donates to Democratic AGs Ahead of Midterms
Sher Edling donates to DAGA before midterms, raising conflict of interest concerns.
2 min read
A prominent climate litigation law firm, Sher Edling, has donated $25,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) before the midterm elections, according to IRS records obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The donation has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest between newly elected Democratic attorneys general and Sher Edling, given the firm’s financial stake in climate-related litigation contracts.
Contingency Fees and Litigation History
Sher Edling has a history of securing contracts with Democratic attorneys general to sue oil companies on behalf of states. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis, meaning it takes a percentage of the money from successful lawsuits. This financial model has led to accusations of influencing judicial outcomes and prioritizing profits over public interest.
In 2022, Sher Edling attempted to secure a contingency fee agreement with Baltimore County to file a lawsuit against oil and gas companies. If the case had succeeded, the firm would have received 25% of the first $100 million in damages, plus 15% of the next $50 million, and 7.5% of any amount above $150 million. This arrangement has sparked concerns about the firm’s motives and the potential for biased judicial outcomes.
Subpoena and Judicial Influence Allegations
Sher Edling has also been accused of attempting to influence judges presiding over climate litigation. Partner Vic Sher was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee in April for his company’s ties to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). The subpoena alleged that ELI and its affiliates may have coordinated with Sher Edling on climate-related litigation and judicial education efforts.
Michael Burger, who serves as Of Counsel at Sher Edling and also leads the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, was accused of ghostwriting materials used by the CJP to educate judges on climate change. The materials were later removed from the judicial manual after 27 state attorneys general noted they were authored by biased climate activists and were designed to influence judicial decisions in favor of plaintiffs.
Neither Sher Edling nor DAGA responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment, leaving the allegations unaddressed. The controversy highlights ongoing concerns about the intersection of law, politics, and corporate interests in climate litigation.
Source: Daily Caller
