Big Law Firms Face Conflict of Interest Representing Energy Clients While Backing Climate Litigation Training Groups
Source: Joy Pullmann. "Big Law Backs The Climate Adversaries Of Their Energy Clients." October 5, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The article argues that top law firms defending big energy companies in climate lawsuits are secretly working against their own clients by funding and partnering with an organization (ELI) that trains judges to rule against energy companies. This creates a conflict of interest where energy companies are essentially paying to lose their own lawsuits, while the law firms profit from both defending them and supporting the opposing legal movement.
Conclusion
Major law firms (WilmerHale, Arnold & Porter, Latham & Watkins) defending energy companies in climate litigation have conflicts of interest because they are simultaneously funding and partnering with organizations like the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) that train judges to rule against those same energy companies, potentially undermining their clients' interests.
Premises
- WilmerHale, Arnold & Porter, and Latham & Watkins all represent major energy companies (ConocoPhillips, BP, Phillips 66) in climate nuisance litigation worth billions of dollars
- These same three firms are institutional members of ELI, and their partners sit on ELI's board or leadership council
- ELI's Climate Judiciary Project has trained approximately 2,000 judges since 2018 on climate science and litigation
- 23 state attorneys general have stated that ELI 'lobbies judges' to make climate policy through courts rather than providing neutral education
- ELI has featured and collaborated with lawyers from Sher Edling, a firm that has filed over two dozen climate-nuisance lawsuits against energy companies
- Judges trained by ELI-affiliated programs have issued adverse rulings against energy companies in parallel cases (e.g., Honolulu v. Sunoco)
- Legal ethics standards require firms to avoid conflicts of interest that could create divided loyalties or constrain professional judgment
- None of the three law firms, nor BP or ConocoPhillips, responded to requests for comment on the conflict of interest
Assumptions
- ELI's judicial training programs are not neutral but are biased toward climate activist legal theories
- Law firm partners' board membership or institutional affiliation with ELI translates into actual influence on the firm's litigation strategy or priorities
- Judges who receive ELI training are measurably more likely to rule against energy companies as a result of that training
- The financial/reputational relationship between firms and ELI constitutes a genuine conflict of interest rather than permissible pro bono or professional engagement
- Climate science supporting the plaintiffs' claims is unreliable or politicized, making the underlying litigation illegitimate
- Big Law's pro bono work is predominantly biased toward 'leftist' causes, which is presented as inherently improper