By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Climate litigation firm Sher Edling donated $25,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) on Sept. 15, according to Internal Revenue Service records obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest involving the law firm’s contracts with Democratic state attorneys general ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
The contribution comes as Sher Edling represents state and local governments in lawsuits against major oil and gas companies, seeking financial compensation for alleged environmental damage and deceptive practices associated with climate change. The firm has secured contracts with Democratic-led attorney general offices, some involving contingency fee arrangements that allow it to receive a percentage of successful settlements or judgments.
The Daily Caller News Foundation’s investigation, published Friday, Oct. 30, examined the political contribution against the backdrop of Sher Edling’s financial interests in government climate litigation and a congressional investigation into relationships between plaintiff attorneys and organizations providing educational materials to federal judges.
Neither Sher Edling nor DAGA responded to the DCNF’s requests for comment.
The latest contribution follows earlier political donations by the firm. According to a 2025 Washington Free Beacon investigation, Sher Edling contributed $24,000 to DAGA in November 2023 and another $25,000 in September 2024, bringing its previously identified contributions to $49,000. The newly reported September 2026 donation would increase that total to $74,000.
DAGA supports Democratic candidates for state attorney general offices, which possess authority to initiate litigation against corporations and retain outside legal counsel.
Sher Edling has emerged as a prominent law firm representing government plaintiffs in litigation alleging that fossil fuel companies misled consumers and contributed to climate-related damage. The firm’s clients have included several Democratic-led states and local governments seeking compensation for infrastructure costs, environmental impacts and other alleged consequences of climate change.
Critics argue that political contributions to an organization supporting attorneys general create potential conflicts when those same officials can award legal contracts to contributing firms.
Such contributions are not inherently unlawful, however, and the reported donation does not establish that any attorney general awarded a contract in exchange for political support.
The firm’s compensation arrangements have attracted particular scrutiny because some contracts provide for payment based on the outcome of litigation.
According to a Minnesota House document examining Sher Edling’s contingency fee arrangements, the firm can receive a negotiated percentage of monetary recoveries rather than collecting traditional hourly fees.
One proposed arrangement involving Baltimore County, Maryland, illustrates the potential financial stakes.
In 2022, Sher Edling sought to represent the county in litigation against oil and gas companies over alleged climate-related damages. Under the proposed agreement, the firm would receive 25% of the first $100 million recovered, 15% of the next $50 million and 7.5% of any recovery exceeding $150 million.
As The Baltimore Sun reported in November 2022, some county council members questioned the proposed lawsuit and its financial arrangements.
Under those terms, a $100 million recovery would generate $25 million in legal fees, while a $150 million recovery would produce $32.5 million for the firm.
The proposed contract illustrates how successful climate litigation could produce substantial payments to outside attorneys, depending on the amount recovered and the terms of individual agreements.
Sher Edling’s political activities have previously drawn attention in Michigan, where Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel pursued climate litigation against fossil fuel companies. The firm’s involvement in litigation associated with Nessel and environmental advocacy organizations has been the subject of scrutiny concerning the relationships among government officials, private attorneys and nonprofit groups.
The latest contribution also follows a congressional investigation into allegations that organizations involved in climate litigation attempted to influence how federal judges evaluate climate-related lawsuits.
On April 28, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., issued a congressional subpoena to Sher Edling partner Vic Sher, seeking records concerning the firm’s relationship with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP).
The committee questioned whether the organizations had coordinated educational activities for federal judges with attorneys involved in climate lawsuits.
“Evidence has emerged that raises questions about whether ELI, CJP, or one of its affiliates have coordinated with your law firm, Sher Edlin LLP, on climate-related litigation, lectures for judges, or other activities aimed at predisposing judges to side with plaintiffs in climate-related cases,” the subpoena stated.
The Climate Judiciary Project provides educational materials to judges concerning climate science, environmental law and litigation. The Environmental Law Institute maintains that the program is intended to provide neutral scientific and legal information rather than advocate particular outcomes.
Congressional investigators focused partly on Michael Burger, who serves as executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and has held an of counsel position at Sher Edling.
The committee argued that his overlapping professional relationships raised questions about whether organizations involved in climate lawsuits were also contributing to materials used to educate judges who might eventually preside over similar cases.
“Mr. Michael Burger, is Of Counsel at your law firm, while also serving as the Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, an organization that has been involved with the CJP since it hosted its inaugural seminar in June 2019. The Sabin Center says it partners with ELI to ‘leverage [its] expertise to support climate solutions’,” the subpoena stated.
The investigation also examined Burger’s involvement in preparing a chapter concerning climate science for the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.
Republican lawmakers alleged that Burger had contributed material without adequately disclosing his relationships with organizations involved in climate litigation. The chapter was subsequently removed following objections from 27 state attorneys general.
“The FJC recently removed the chapter from the manual after twenty-seven state attorneys general noted that the material was authored by biased climate litigation activists and designed to predispose judges in favor of plaintiffs,” the subpoena continued.
A September Daily Caller report examining the scientific manual controversy raised additional questions about the professional affiliations of individuals contributing to judicial education materials.
Burger did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment concerning the latest reporting.
Sher Edling has disputed the congressional allegations. In a May response reported by POLITICO’s E&E News, attorneys representing the firm argued that fossil fuel companies and their lawyers also participate in judicial education programs, including activities supported by industry funding.
The Environmental Law Institute has likewise maintained that its Climate Judiciary Project does not coordinate with litigants or advise judges on how to rule.
The congressional inquiry has not established that Sher Edling improperly influenced a judicial decision, and the firm’s relationships with academic and nonprofit organizations do not independently demonstrate misconduct.
The dispute reflects broader disagreements over climate litigation, as state and local governments seek financial recovery from energy companies while defendants challenge the legal foundations and jurisdiction of those lawsuits.
Sher Edling maintains that its litigation seeks accountability for alleged deception by the fossil fuel industry and compensation for costs imposed on communities. Opponents question whether such cases improperly attempt to establish climate policy through the courts rather than through elected legislatures.
The latest $25,000 contribution adds a political-financing dimension to those disputes because state attorneys general can influence both the selection of outside legal counsel and decisions about pursuing climate-related cases.
With elections approaching and several Democratic attorneys general involved in ongoing climate litigation, the firm’s political contributions and government contracts remain subjects of scrutiny alongside the House Judiciary Committee’s continuing investigation into climate-related judicial education activities.
Original article
Comments