California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s decision to hire an outside law firm to handle a high-profile climate lawsuit has drawn its own legal challenge — from lawyers in his office.
The labor union that represents attorneys in Bonta’s office has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, saying the California State Personnel Board wrongfully sided with Bonta (D) who enlisted the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in the state’s lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil companies.
Judge Shelleyanne Chang has scheduled a hearing in the case for June 27.
The union — California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) — argued that hiring outside lawyers violates state law and is dispiriting for the 1,100 attorneys on staff. The climate lawsuit, the union said, “are the kinds of cases that attract attorneys to come to work for the state in the first place.”
California in 2023 became the largest player among a number of governments that sued fossil fuel companies to hold them financially accountable for the effects of climate change. California’s lawsuit accuses the industry of misleading the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels.
“To go hire a high-end law firm, as interesting as the litigation might be, it’s a run-of-the-mill, garden variety legal theory,” CASE president Timothy O’Connor said in an interview. “Why they would need to go out to $1,600-an-hour attorneys for work that we feel is completely within the expertise of our very good and dedicated civil service attorneys is beyond me.”
In court filings, the union said hiring an outside firm “deprives civil service attorneys of once-in-a-career opportunities” and reduces “the few incentives that currently exist to entice young attorneys to come to work for the state.”
“Illegally outsourcing this work will do incalculable damage to the state’s legal workforce,” the petition states, adding that it would “ironically lead to a greater need to outsource more legal work in the future due to a lack of expertise and experience that could be gained on a case like this.”
Bonta should have made certain he had the resources and staff to prosecute the case before it was filed, the union said.
“It appears that DOJ was anxious to grab some headlines, but not as anxious to actually do the necessary work,” the complaint argues.
Bonta’s office said in court documents that although it has assigned five lawyers from the office to the case, its attorneys “lack sufficient experience and expertise in litigating such a massive lawsuit against an entire industry with nearly limitless legal resources at its disposal.”
In a letter to the union, Bonta’s office called the lawsuit “one of the largest, most high-profile, and most significant cases the Department of Justice has ever litigated.” If the climate cases are successful, the oil industry could be forced to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for harming the public — like tobacco and opioid manufacturers before it.
Bonta is not the first attorney general to face blowback for hiring outside counsel to pursue environmental litigation. But most challenges have come from outside groups: Wisconsin’s dairy industry sued the state attorney general in February for using an outside lawyer to work on environmental cases, and groups that are critical of climate lawsuits asked two influential House panels in April to examine the District of Columbia’s use of outside lawyers.
Cali’s bill: $1,241/hour x 13
The California union filed suit in February against the State Personnel Board after it upheld Bonta’s decision to hire the law firm. The board wrote in December that it was reasonable for Bonta to find “that this level of expertise and dedicated resource commitment is what is needed to effectively litigate this ‘monster’ of a lawsuit.”
The board added that the contract was permissible because Lieff Cabraser’s services “are of such a highly specialized or technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experience, and ability are not available through the civil service system.”
CASE countered that the decision “sets a dangerous precedent that would allow the outsourcing of any legal work.”
It said deputy attorneys general in the office are qualified because they routinely handle death penalty cases “where the stakes are lives and not simply money.”
The union added that Bonta has continued to hire private law firms, highlighting a March letter in which his office told CASE it was employing the law firm Sher Edling as outside counsel.
Bonta’s office argued that Sher Edling — which represents a number of cities and states that have filed similar climate lawsuits — is “uniquely positioned” to assist Bonta in coordinating with those governments.
Since 2017, when Sher Edling helped two California counties and a city file the nation’s first climate deception lawsuit, its representation has grown to include more than two-thirds of all such lawsuits in the U.S.— six states, two tribes, 16 cities and counties, and the District of Columbia.
Bonta’s office said it would rely on the firm “to provide it with guidance on strategic and evidentiary issues, and coordinate with the many state and local government entity plaintiffs that the firm represents throughout the country.”
The union lawsuit against Bonta’s office provides a glimpse into the cost of climate litigation. The initial contract with Lieff Cabraser was $1.5 million from September 2023 through June 2024.
The contract revealed that the Lieff Cabraser attorneys working for the state includes 13 partners who bill $599.25 to $1,241 per hour. Associate attorneys earn $399.50 to $544 per hour. Sher Edling attorneys are making between $175 to $625 an hour.
CASE argues that the climate lawsuit was put together by deputy assistant attorneys general in Bonta’s office. But the office bolstered its argument that it needs outside counsel with a declaration from Mari Mayeda, a deputy attorney general in the environmental section with nearly 40 years experience in civil litigation.
Mayeda, who was assigned to the case, told the personnel board she did not believe the lawsuit could be handled by the current team even if it were “significantly expanded” because litigating such cases involves “a very specialized body of knowledge.”
She told the board that the companies — with “almost infinite resources” — would be represented by “an army of the best-known, best-paid, most experienced litigators from multiple major law firms” and that if California hopes to be successful, it needs assistance.
The board’s approval was preceded by a similar decision by its executive officer who determined that the issue was whether the legal contract was for services that were so highly specialized or technical that they were not readily available through the civil service system.
“Does the DOJ presently have sufficient attorneys with experience dealing with mass environmental and tort litigation to dedicate to this case? “ the executive officer wrote. “The answer is no.”
The lawsuit came as Bonta has taken the lead in challenging the Trump administration. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature in February gave Bonta an additional $25 million to bolster litigation efforts.
The office has spent about $5 million from the new fund, Bonta said last week, adding that it’s helped the state protect nearly $170 billion in federal funding Trump had sought to claw back.
Bonta offered a shout-out to his staff last week as he announced the state’s 26th lawsuit against the administration. The case challanges Trump for signing legislation that blocks the state’s electric vehicle mandate.
Bonta said he didn’t expect Trump’s “barrage of unlawful, chaotic and disruptive” action to slow down.
“Fortunately,” he added, “I know we’ll be able to weather the storm thanks in part to the dedication and tenacity of the folks on my team, whom I’m very proud of.”
