America’s largest and most prestigious law firms coordinate with a nonprofit that pushes climate activism and undermines U.S. energy sovereignty, even as they represent energy companies in domestic climate litigation.

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) incubates lawfare attacks on American energy companies, while strengthening ties between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the global climate Left. America’s richest and most powerful lawyers are partners in this effort, according to a recent report from China watchdog State Armor.

Just look at the donors for ELI’s October 20 Environment Award Dinner in Washington, D.C. Nearly all of them were major law firms, many of which also represent the energy companies under attack by ELI-aligned trial lawyers relying on so-called “attribution science” theories concocted by ELI-affiliated experts.

Others are taking note of this apparent conflict of interest. Former Arizona Supreme Court justice Andrew Gould identified three top law firms — WilmerHale, Arnold & Porter, and Latham & Watkins (each an “Ambassador Sponsor” for the 2026 ELI annual dinner) — that simultaneously maintain close ties with ELI while defending domestic energy companies against climate suits.

ELI’s relationship with BigLaw is about more than donations. The firms also lend personnel and prestige to ELI’s climate lawfare advocacy, which weakens American energy independence, even as they represent domestic energy companies. Current and former partners from Latham, Arnold & Porter, and WilmerHale (among other firms) serve on ELI’s board of directors and leadership counsel. The firms host programming through which ELI propagates its climate litigation theories, like the “boot camps” hosted by Arnold & Porter and the “environmental justice litigation” webinars hosted by Latham. None of that activity by itself raises an issue.

The problem here is that these firms simultaneously defend American industry against the very same climate claims that ELI incubates and promotes. Arnold & Porter publicly advertises its role as counsel to BP “in over 30 novel climate change lawsuits filed by state and local governments.” Latham (Phillips 66) and WilmerHale (ConocoPhillips) have represented energy defendants in similar climate suits. As former Justice Gould pointed out, energy clients should question whether their lawyers’ ties to ELI undermine their representation.

Through their entanglements with ELI, BigLaw firms also strengthen Chinese industry at America’s expense. ELI leverages American law firms to supply CCP affiliates with vital strategic insights, which Beijing exploits for economic or geopolitical gain. In conjunction with Latham lawyers, ELI established a working group that briefs the Chinese government and CCP-adjacent groups on American environmental regulation and best practices within the U.S. energy industry.

This is a classic “gray zone” intelligence operation — exploiting American NGOs for influence and strategic gain. China extracts information it can weaponize to pressure American businesses or policymakers. And Chinese entities gain legitimacy through their relationships with the Western legal establishment.

ELI might counter that its forum facilitates cooperation on climate policy with China, if only at the substate level. But this apparent cooperation has been fruitless. China is the world’s top emitter, and the CCP shows no interest in cutting emissions. Instead, through ELI, China extracts economic intelligence and influences domestic lawfare attacks on American energy.

American energy companies should think carefully before retaining law firms so deeply enmeshed with environmentalist groups that do the bidding of Chinese businesses and regulators, often by pushing novel climate lawsuits in the U.S. ELI is integral to a sophisticated lawfare campaign to impose a backdoor carbon tax on consumers through lawsuits. ELI veteran Michael Gerrard is an intellectual architect of this campaign, as State Armor and other sources have documented. Congress is investigating ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project in view of evidence that CJP secretly propagandizes judges in favor of such lawsuits.

ELI’s China ties jeopardize its energy clients’ interests, but BigLaw firms have reaped rewards from access and influence in emerging Chinese regulatory markets. Arnold & Porter has maintained an office in Shanghai since 1998 and touts its “deep roots in China.” It represents American, European, and international companies doing business in China and advises Chinese companies doing business overseas. WilmerHale operated an office in Beijing from 2004 to 2024 and still maintains a Washington-based “China Desk” led by its Beijing office’s former partner-in-charge, Lester Ross, who is credited with having “pioneered the field of Chinese environmental policy and law” and has “even been called upon to help create certain Chinese laws.”

Corporate clients and the federal government alike should take notice of the ELI-CCP-BigLaw axis. Officials should consider whether law firms that freely engage with CCP entities and help abet Chinese influence campaigns threaten federal interests. These national security concerns warrant the attention of the Trump administration and my former colleagues at the Justice Department. At minimum, law firms should disassociate from ELI — an obvious first step toward rectifying this problem.

***

Chad R. Mizelle is the former chief of staff to the attorney general of the United States and former acting general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Menu

The Hidden China Alliance Of America’s Most Powerful Law Firms