The City of Charleston has engaged Sher Edling LLP, a California-based environmental law firm, to pursue claims against companies it alleges are responsible for local climate change impacts, such as sea level rise. This engagement is outlined in a 2020 contingency-fee contract obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
According to Sher Edling LLP’s website, the firm represents public entities in environmental cases involving climate damage, water contamination, and pollution. The firm’s clientele includes cities like New York, San Francisco, and Honolulu, as well as the states of Minnesota and Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Additionally, Sher Edling handles litigation related to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), oil spills, and plastics on behalf of public entities.
The contingency-fee agreement stipulates that Sher Edling LLP will advance all litigation costs and receive compensation only if a net monetary recovery is achieved. The contract outlines a 25% fee on recoveries up to $100 million, 15% for amounts between $100–150 million, and 7.5% for recoveries exceeding $150 million. In the absence of recovery, the firm receives no payment and absorbs all costs.
A July 2025 white paper by the Washington Legal Foundation raises legal and policy questions regarding municipalities’ authority to retain private law firms for public-interest litigation. Authored by former Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, the paper argues that only state attorneys general may act as parens patriae and cautions that lawsuits led by cities or counties might conflict with state enforcement priorities.
Charleston’s Corporation Counsel maintains control over all major litigation decisions such as filing, settlement, and trial strategy. Sher Edling must obtain written approval for key actions, provide draft filings in advance, and hold regular status meetings with the City Attorney’s office throughout the case.
The agreement classifies the Legal Services Agreement itself as attorney-client privileged and specifies that all media communications be managed by the City. Both parties have agreed to maintain confidentiality throughout the litigation process to prevent revealing strategy or negotiation details to defendants.
