ST. PAUL, Minn. (Legal Newsline) - Republican lawmakers are considering launching an investigation to review the origins of Minnesota Attorney General Ellison's climate change lawsuit against Big Oil.
Rachel Aplikowski, communications director for the Senate Republican Caucus, said the use of outside counsel to pursue the litigation and whether Ellison has been completely transparent about the foundation of the case is raising concerns among leadership.
"I am very concerned about any outside influence on the duties and responsibilities of the Minnesota AG’s office," Aplikowski said.
"Minnesotans deserve an Attorney General’s office that is focused on the most pressing needs of Minnesotans, not on the wish list of liberal, special interest groups from New York."
With help from outside lawyers funded by Michael Bloomberg through the New York University School of Law's State Energy and Environmental Impact Center (SEEIC), Ellison sued Exxon Mobil and several other major energy companies in June 2020. The lawsuit claims the companies violated state law by engaging in a public relations effort that undermined the science of climate change.
Last month, Ellison denied any impropriety in hiring SEEIC attorneys Leigh Currie and Pete Surdo as special assistant attorneys general (SAAGs) to pursue the litigation, stating they "were not privately hired."
According to a Secondment Agreement dated May 24, 2019, the SAAGs were provided to "advance progressive clean energy, climate change, and environmental legal positions."
Ellison's office pointed to a statement the AG made in February, in which he argued that he has “always been transparent about the money that pays the salaries of employees in the Attorney General's Office.” He said in the statement that his use of SAAGs was in the best interest of Minnesotans because the number of attorneys in their office has dropped by more than half over the past two decades. He further insisted that the attorneys do not report to anyone but him and exist only to serve Minnesota.
Critics have argued that Ellison’s use of the embedded attorneys paid for by third parties with a determined agenda violates state law.
Doug Seaton, founder and president of the Upper Midwest Law Center, told Legal Newsline last month that the law requires SAAGs to be regular, civil service employees of the AG’s Office.
Aplikowski further argues that transparency surrounding the hiring of Currie and Surdo is lacking.
"The legislature holds the purse strings to fund the executive branch, so it’s especially alarming the AG was less than transparent about the arrangement to the legislature,” said Aplikowski.
She said that in 2019, she raised the possibility of initiating legislation to address Ellison's hiring of privately funded activist attorneys. That effort was pushed to the back burner once the Covid-19 pandemic hit, but the Senate is not ruling out further investigation into the situation.
"Back-room government deals made without the benefit of sunlight and oversight are always dangerous. If we can’t know what’s going on, the public can’t hold elected officials accountable," said Aplikowski.
The issue is currently slated to be revisited by legislators in the Minnesota Senate in 2022, Aplikowski said.
Ellison's lawsuit was initially filed in Ramsey County state court and was later removed to federal court. The case was remanded to state court by Chief District Judge John R. Runheim on March 31 and remains pending.
Defendants are currently challenging the AG's request for more than $300,000 in legal fees for litigating the motion to remand.
"The Attorney General’s brief includes a one-sentence assertion, unsupported by any evidence, claiming that its office and outside contingency-fee counsel spent approximately 580 hours at an estimated cost of $305,400 litigating the motion to remand, even though the salaries of the two lead lawyers on the Attorney General’s staff are paid in full by a third-party advocacy group based in New York City," the companies asserted in an April 29 brief.