Law Firms

Latham & Watkins

Hot topic

Author: Marisa McQuilken

Published: 05/06/2008 03:20

Email article | Comment on this article | Sign up to News Alerts

US law firms jump on the lucrative bandwagon as the legal battles surrounding climate change heat up. Marisa McQuilken reports

Kenneth Berlin and his team at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom have been working on climate-related matters for years. He headed the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division, chaired the Environmental Law Institute and has shepherded a mountain of environmental litigation for major corporations.

Skadden had not needed a climate change group before: it simply tapped environmental, energy regulatory, intellectual property and tax lawyers to help out when the need arose. Partners at the US’s highest-grossing law firm have, however, changed their minds: this month, they were scheduled to launch a 23-lawyer group specifically devoted to climate change issues.

“The whole area is changing,” says Berlin, who will head the group. “The area is developing so quickly that it now merits a practice area.”

The firm is joining an ever-growing list of major US firms that are creating a climate change brand. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld debuted its climate change practice in November. Vinson & Elkins announced its climate change practice last spring and many others have organised groups in recent months. In fact, 26 top 100 firms tout some form of climate change practice.

“Climate is hot in a way that nothing else has been before,” says Latham & Watkins partner Robert Wyman Jr, the firm’s lead counsel for Clean Air Act matters. “We are talking about transforming the energy and transportation economy.”

Unlike other fleeting law firm trends — remember those Y2K practices? — there appears to be real work to be done here. Although the US Congress is still working out federal emissions limits, corporate clients are facing state and regional emissions caps as well as standards outside the US set by the Kyoto Protocol. The work falls mainly into two categories: helping companies navigate emissions caps issues and litigating disputes arising from emissions limits or from problems caused by greenhouse gases.

That said, there is still a marketing ploy at work: ‘climate change’ groups primarily rely upon lawyers from existing practice areas, such as corporate, energy, tax and, of course, environmental. Labelling a multidisciplinary group as a ‘climate change practice’ is shorthand for clients that are genuinely fearful about regulation and litigation.

Cash incentive

Naturally, there is money to be made. Covington & Burling’s Ruben Kraiem, who co-chairs the firm’s carbon markets, climate change and clean technology practice, says the 17-lawyer group has generated $1.5m (£759,000) annually since its inception in 2005.

Kraiem estimates that at least 250 of the hours spent on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co and Texas Pacific Group’s $45bn (£22.8bn) leveraged buy-out of TXU Corp in 2007 were billed as climate change work. During the buy-out, investors became concerned about opposition from environmental groups because of the company’s coal-powered generation of electricity. The buyers wanted the deal to include a number of policies addressing climate change issues.

Latham’s Wyman says his firm’s global climate change practice, which started in 2004, is generating serious revenue. He says one of his current climate projects alone has brought in more than $1m (£506,000) in fees.

Wyman, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, organised the California Climate Coalition and now counts it as one of his major clients. The coalition’s 18 members include Shell, Chevron, GE, Northrup Grumman and a number of start-up clean-technology companies. The start-ups can potentially provide the carbon-emitting members with ways to reduce their emissions and, in turn, those members can invest in and help expand the start-up companies.

Wyman formed the coalition in anticipation of the 2006 enactment of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which mandates that greenhouse gas emissions from major industries are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

American Honda belongs to the carbon-emitting side of Wyman’s coalition. David Raney, senior manager of environmental and energy affairs for Honda, says he sought out Latham, and specifically Wyman, for the firm’s expertise on carbon trading. “We are breaking new ground,” says Raney.

Carbon lawyers

One of the key business drivers for firms is the Kyoto Protocol. Though the US has not adopted it, Kyoto took effect in much of the rest of the world in 2005 — and US companies are bound by it when they operate in international markets.

The protocol requires developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below-1990 levels and allows companies to invest in clean energy projects in other countries in exchange for credits to offset emissions. The European Union has set up a cap-and-trade system under which companies are assigned emissions limits. They can then trade for carbon credits if they exceed their caps.

And that is where the ‘carbon lawyers’ come in. Alston & Bird partner Kipp Coddington, for instance, helps his greenhouse gas-emitting clients navigate the carbon market by advising them on emissions trading issues. He says 90% of the practice’s clients are new to Alston and were specifically looking for climate change expertise.

Firms are also anticipating eventual federal regulation in the US. Clifford Chance created its environmental and climatic trading group back in 2003. Washington DC-based counsel William Thomas says his energy and manufacturing clients are increasingly aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may soon require companies to comply with climate-related disclosures. The firm is helping companies craft appropriate communications in their financial statements and in their voluntary sustainability reports, says Thomas.

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs has held hearings on getting the SEC to require public companies to disclose the financial impact of climate regulation.

Big-ticket litigation

Firms are also seeing a bump in litigation based on climate change issues. Honda, for instance, is one of several car manufacturers involved in a high-stakes fight over greenhouse gas regulation.

Of counsel Charles Haake and partner Raymond Ludwiszewski, both based in Gibson Dunn & Crutcher’s Washington DC office, represent the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. Gibson Dunn is litigating a string of cases arising out of California’s 2002 law restricting greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Car manufacturers contend the law amounts to a state-level mandate for higher fuel economy — an area they say only the federal government is allowed to regulate.

Though Gibson Dunn does not have an explicitly-labelled climate change practice, Ludwiszewski was general counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1990s and has dealt with climate issues for years.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can seek permission from the EPA to impose state regulations on air pollution that exceed federal-level restrictions. After the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s authority in Massachusetts v EPA [2007] to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, California applied for a waiver to impose a cap on carbon dioxide emitted from cars.

The problem, says Ludwiszewski, is that a vehicle’s gas mileage is measured by converting carbon dioxide emissions to miles per gallon. By capping carbon dioxide from cars, California would require that car manufacturers increase fuel economy standards — exactly what the federal law prohibits at the state level. California argues that if it obtains the EPA waiver, then the car emissions cap will become federal law — which cannot be pre-empted. Though the EPA initially denied the waiver, California hopes the denial will be overturned.

Though California lit the initial spark, 13 other states have followed suit and imposed similar caps. Car manufacturers have also sued in federal courts in Rhode Island and Vermont.

Like Gibson Dunn, litigation giant Kirkland & Ellis does not have a climate change practice but lawyers there are busy getting up to speed. Washington DC-based partners Andrew Clubok and Stuart Drake are representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, in the multistate litigation.

It is clear the legal battle over climate change will not be going away. In Congress, the proposed Lieberman-Warner America’s Climate Security Act would set up a federal emissions trading system. Climate lawyers believe a version of the act will pass by the end of 2009. As US companies scramble to meet the subsequent requirements, they are likely to end up on the doorsteps of major law firms.

See Opinion, page 21. A version of this article first appeared in Legal Times, Legal Week’s US sister title.

Job of the Week

Middle East - Corporate 3+

Private Practice - Abu Dhabi and Dubai

Job of the Week

Opportunities in the Far East

Opportunities in the Far East

Quick Job Search

>Advanced Search