Follow-up climate litigation made Learn more about capital afterward Sher Edling LLP filed a nationwide lawsuit.
From observations of climate litigation. My emphasis..
More on Mysterious Emails About Hollywood Funding Government Climate Lawsuits
Readers of CLW know that New Jersey has recently joined a wave of “climate” litigants claiming that energy companies have caused global warming, to the detriment of plaintiffs, and seeking to extract hundreds of millions of dollars. or even billions of dollars (each) and also influence or even change federal policy, effectively imposing an agenda that is rejected by a majority of the country.
These lawsuits started out as nuisance acts that, after a number of court failures, were transformed into mostly “consumer fraud” claims. Likewise, after finding the hard way that the federal courts failed to give results to these claims, the message became an insistence that the suits were in fact a series of unrelated coincidences. pure state law issues that the federal courts should not trouble themselves with despite a well-coordinated national campaign and design to circumvent the proper democratic process for policy adoption.
New Jersey also hired California law firm Sher Edling, LLP, to handle its case, a firm that recently disclosure received millions of dollars in “charity grants” to support “healthy communities” and other buzzwords that didn’t exactly report anything, email showthe money is actually spent – these climate lawsuits.
The politicians then promised the same company many, many, millions each of the taxpayers’ damages, to pursue lawsuits where we know the company was paid to follow. Obviously, that raises the question of disclosure – for example, What did Keith Ellison know?, and when did he know it: was he tricked, or was he in it? Thus raises the question of the fiduciary responsibility of elected officials to the state and taxpayers.
Passing charitable allowance to fund “contingency fee” lawsuits by politicians comes from a group called the Resource Heritage Foundation, or RLF, which is funded by other organizations that route the money there, including the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation.
Recently, Fox News report that the RLF’s vehicle for this work, the “Collective Action Fund”, has been transferred to the New Venture Fund, financed by the Political Left”motherhood” and “Freedom dark money Juggernaut“Is” Financially funded project of the New Venture Fund, the Collective Action Fund for Accountability, Resilience and Adaptation. “
So the money used to pay (“contingency fees”) for climate lawsuits by activist politicians is now thrown into this multi-billion-billion pile then churned and passed on. once again. In short, while the parties are predictable, this does a much better job of obscuring the financiers of this rather dubious public-private partnership to file what a federal court once describe therefore (in a very similar context): “The point of a multi-front strategy is therefore to leverage the costs, risks, and burdens on Chevron of defending itself in multiple jurisdictions to achieve prompt recovery, most likely by offering a settlement. “
Take us back to New Jersey. Our friends at Energy Policy Advocates tell CLW that The New Jersey Attorney General’s office stated its principals involved in the new lawsuit had “no record” referring to the RLF during the most likely time period in which they would send letters about party funding. beyond that about possible litigation – if they have exchange mail about it.
You see, New Jersey, Like Minnesota, South Carolina, and indeed nearly all plaintiff jurisdictions have codes of professional conduct that require clients to “informed consent” when others pay money for their lawyer. To date, although the number of peaches is not small, Energy Policy Advocates have found no record of any such agreement between Minnesota, et al. plaintiff.
Energy policy advocates find only one reference to RLF – outside Minnesota AG circulating defendants’ removal notice of the District of Columbia case from local court to federal court, and a subsequent summary in which the defendants presented the plan to the court as suspect at the time.
This comes from a climate plaintiff whose legal ethics rules are unusual in that they do not require explicit consent, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Anne Arundel acknowledged an email discussing the group, sent about eight weeks before it filed the lawsuit.
No other plaintiff’s jurisdiction has acknowledged any correspondence referring to the “Resource Heritage Foundation” or the RLF’s email domain. Let CLW draw the clearest and most reasonable conclusion.
The first is that it seems inevitable that lawyers have failed to inform their clients that, under applicable codes of ethics, it is imperative to fully agree to this agreement; if that’s the case, it suggests the attorney has some immediate problems. Instead, they did so to inform their customers but everyone (who saved one person, once, in Anne Arundel) followed a strict regimen; if that is the case, politicians who have promised to double down on lawyers for damages alleged to be taxpayers, and any supporters, will face serious questions about their allegiance to fiduciary duties.
Next, this March 2021 email can do one of two things. It could be informing colleagues about something Hamilton Tyler found on the internet, e.g. a law professor nurture tax and ethics questions in July 2020 about what appeared to be going on behind the scenes at the time (later confirmed). Second, Mr. Tyler could discuss what he was informed of and what he was reserved, apparently in all other jurisdictions, with respect to the phone: the company we are going to offer a generous contingency fee agreement that has already been paid.
Unless and until this email is released, the public will not know for sure which of these situations are realistic. None of them look very promising to the parties involved.
The more bizarre aspect of this remains why there is no record of such agreement disclosure in jurisdictions where such disclosure is required. CLW believes that this aspect of the climate litigation industry is certainly one worth watching.
Related
