Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is poised to sue major oil companies with the assistance of a law firm that has received millions of dollars from major left-wing organizations in recent years.
Nessel declared her intention to file a “climate nuisance” lawsuit against major oil companies in May, and her office reached agreements in late September with three law firms to assist, including a San Francisco-based firm called Sher Edling, two documents reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation show. Sher Edling is involved in similar lawsuits in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C., and the firm received approximately $13 million in recent years from major left-wing organizations like the New Venture Fund, according to a congressional memo published Monday.
Michigan’s expected lawsuit will assert that major energy companies are liable for the effects of climate change that their products purportedly caused, and numerous other jurisdictions pursuing their own “climate nuisance” litigation have made similar allegations. Because Michigan has not yet filed its lawsuit, details about the lawsuit — such as which companies will be named as defendants — remain unclear.
Since 2017, Sher Edling has received $5.3 million from the Resources Legacy Fund, a left-of-center environmental grantmaker, in support of its climate litigation efforts, according to the congressional memo. The Tides Foundation, another major left-wing grantmaking group, donated $235,000 to the firm in 2022.
In the same period of time, Sher Edling raked in $8.4 million from the New Venture Fund, a left-wing grantmaking organization and part of Arabella Advisors’ network of nonprofit groups. Arabella Advisors is a for-profit enterprise founded by Eric Kessler, a Clinton administration alum, and the nonprofits in the consultancy’s network spent nearly $1 billion in 2022 to advance progressive causes across America.
The other two firms named in the agreements are DiCello Levitt and Hausfeld, which are also not headquartered in Michigan. Hausfeld touts itself as an early adopter of third-party funding for its lawsuits; the firm did not respond to emailed questions inquiring as to whether the firm plans to receive outside funding to support its work on the anticipated Michigan suit.
The contracts stipulate that the three law firms only stand to make money if the state is able to recover funds from the defendants it sues. Specifically, the firms will make 10% of the first $150 million recovered and 2.5% of anything beyond that threshold if recovery is obtained before discovery, according to the signed document outlining the contingency fee structure.
If the firms are able to help the state recover funds from the defendants after the discovery process begins, they will take home 16.67% of the first $150 million recovered and 7.5% of every dollar beyond that amount, according to the contingency fee agreement.
It is unclear how much Nessel may seek in damages from the defendants if she files the lawsuit as anticipated. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison — who is pursuing his own “climate nuisance” litigation against major energy companies with Sher Edling’s help — suggested in 2020 that he is seeking a settlement that could be akin to the $8 billion deal his state reached with tobacco companies in the 1990s, according to The Associated Press.
The Michigan state senate’s GOP caucus slammed Nessel’s plans to sue major energy companies shortly after she announced them in May.
“Beyond attempting to cripple an industry critical to our state’s economy and well-being, such overtly political litigation sets a dangerous precedent,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Nessel. “The legal system should not be used as a tool for advancing political agendas or targeting political adversaries. Such an abuse of power threatens the public’s trust in our institutions.”
Notably, Nessel said in May that her office would not rule out including utility companies and other industries in her climate change lawsuit, according to The Detroit News. The same legal logic that underlies suing energy companies for their role in and response to climate change does not need to be stretched far to justify litigation against the auto industry, which is key to Michigan’s economy, according to O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance For Consumers.
“The same types of officials who are pursuing meatpacking companies because cows contribute to climate change aren’t going to stop at oil producers, they’re going to go after everyone who has a substantial carbon footprint. There is no way that the auto industry can somehow avoid that fate in the eyes of the Left and its progressive allies,” Skinner told the DCNF. “If the oil producers are liable, then the utilities that built electric generating facilities that can only run on fossil fuels are also liable. The logic then tracks to automakers just the same.”
If Nessel files the lawsuit as announced, Michigan would join the more than two dozen other state and local governments that have already launched climate change litigation. In Honolulu’s lawsuit against energy corporations, several current and former government officials, ex-military personnel and legal scholars filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to take up the case due to its possible ramifications for the economy, national security and federalism.
“Controlling energy has long constituted an important national security goal that not only supports economic independence and stability but also U.S. diplomacy and military capabilities,” John Yoo, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and Richard Epstein, a legal scholar at New York University, wrote in their brief. “If this Court were to allow these tort cases to proceed, states and localities could handicap an interstate industry critical to the nation’s economy and security.”
Nessel’s office, Sher Edling, Hausfeld and DiCello Levitt did not respond to requests for comment.
Featured Image Credit: SecretName101
