Coming Soon: Intergalactic Immigration Practice
The Legal Reader brings us the interesting news that various California law firms are forming "Global Warming Practice Groups":
Soon after California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced he was suing carmakers over vehicle pollution, and the state passed a new law to limit greenhouse gas emissions, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman announced it was putting together a new climate change and sustainability practice group. And Morrison & Foerster announced an event to discuss the new Global Warming Solutions Act. . . .[N]either Pillsbury nor MoFo has hired anyone for the new climate groups. But both are earnest about what they call a burgeoning new area and say they're anticipating client needs by connecting previously disparate disciplines.
Sounds like some people have watched An Inconvenient Truth a few too many times.
Seriously speaking, we are not questioning the reality or the science of global warming (since we disclaim any knowledge of science). All we are saying is that (1) given the pace at which global warming would be taking place, it's perhaps a little premature to be forming practice groups around it; and (2) if global warming is in fact taking place at a super-rapid pace, we should be more concerned about the survival of the human race than about its legal ramifications.
This pretty much sums up our view:
"People tend to get ahead of themselves, seeing the next arena," [environmental lawyer Joseph Armao] said. "Heller Ehrman will be the first to form a group -- we'll call it the global warming cooling-off group -- if the state of California continues to file lawsuits along the lines of Lockyer's misguided lawsuit."
As Climate Changes, Large Firms Look at Global-Warming Practice Areas [The Recorder via The Legal Reader]
Warming Practices Heat Up [Volokh Conspiracy]
Comments
I wonder if the law students at enviro-practice schools pushed for these groups? It sounds like a creation of the law firms to get the tree-huggers off their backs. Maybe the rationale was to take a tree-hugger and pair him/her up with the tree-killer (via mere paper consumption), the law firm.
Posted by: Smitty | October 19, 2006 11:51 PM
David,
I actually disagree with you on this one. I think that the firms recognize that there is a high probability that in the short to intermediate term, say, one to ten years, companies are going to have to deal with a host of new laws, regulations, and, quite possibly, some sort of tort/nuisance suits related to greenhouse gas emisions. Companies that have lawyers who can make an educated guess about what tose regulations will require will, presumably, be able to reduce their compliance costs. I actually don't see this as a moral action on the part of the firms or their clients, but, rather, as a plausible expectation of a future practice area
Posted by: Peter | October 20, 2006 02:26 AM
Aaaand a random conservative post again. Awesome.
Posted by: sigh | October 20, 2006 02:41 AM
Oh David Lat... As much as I love your shirtless pics, sometimes you make Fosco tired.
Posted by: CountFosco | October 20, 2006 06:49 AM
it's not a conservative post. see item (2) in the third paragraph. if we're truly worried about global warming, this practice area is like rearranging the proverbial deck chairs.
these problems could all be dealt w/under conventional environmental/regulatory practices. seems more like a marketing gimmick by law firms, tied to a sexy current events issue, than anything else.
(but hey, not a bad gimmick. after all, it's getting the firms all this free publicity in the legal press, law.com, blawgs.)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2006 07:48 AM
Cynical move to imply that "An Inconvenient Truth" brainwashes people and then assert scientific ignorance, as though that should get you off the hook for a gratuitous sideswipe. I especially like the assertion that if global warming exists, the legal implications don't matter because we should focus all our energies on "the survival of the human race." Because -- why, yes! -- Pillsbury is better qualified to reverse global warming than they are to represent clients in counseling or litigation that comes out of new regulatory regimes.
Should've just limited this post to "Global warming is teh funny."
Posted by: CN | October 20, 2006 04:50 PM