Well, I hope they got a no win, no fee deal.
I don't like being cynical (it's more of a congenital thing) but I would not put any money on the new coalition of green groups successfully suing the Treasury for failing to consider the environmental implications of the Royal Bank of Scotland's carbon intensive investment practices when it pumped billions of taxpayers money into the bank.
The Treasury may well technically be in breach of government rules through its failure to give even a cursory nod to environmental considerations when it bailed out RBS, while its failure to subsequently rein in the bank's carbon intensive lending should certainly be added to the ever expanding list of craven ineptitude that characterises the whole sorry saga.
But it is easy to forget that things were just a tad fraught on that weekend back in the autumn when one of the UK's largest banks stared into the abyss, and it is extremely hard to imagine the Treasury being successfully sued for saving the bank from collapse. Apologies once again for the cynicism, but the Establishment tends to win these types of arguments.
But that is not to say the case is without its merits, and regardless of the eventual result it provides a high profile reminder of the increased legal risks all carbon intensive businesses (and the governments that support them) now face.
Any business guilty of environmental degradation already runs the risk of embarrassing and costly legal action, but as climate change really begins to bite that risk is only going to get more and more acute.
It is not hard to imagine that existing environmental and human rights legislation could be harnessed to make a case against the worst carbon emitters, with the world's climate refugees lining up as highly emotive litigants.
Carbon intensive firms might be able to amass the best corporate lawyers money can by, but decisions such as the US Environmental Protection Agency's recent ruling that carbon emissions constitute a health risk only strengthen the hand of potential litigators, while the simple reality is that, win or lose, any such cases would represent a PR disaster for those firms involved.
You do not need a PhD in media studies to work out who will be the public relations victor in a battle between a homeless Eskimo and a global oil behemoth.
This increased risk may not be enough to stop firms engaging in carbon intensive projects, nor may it be enough to stop investors funding environmentally irresponsible practices.
But it is certainly an issue all business should be aware of and it also provides yet further evidence that low carbon technologies enjoy a much lower long term risk profile than polluting alternatives.
After all, you are not going to be sued by a South Sea Islander who lost their home, their worldly possessions, and their country for investing in solar panels.
The EU will raise its Paris deal pledge to 45 per cent, a spokesperson for the European Commission told CHN
EU hails hat-trick of climate policy victories as renewables targets followed by agreement on energy efficiency goals and long term decarbonisation plans
Prime Minister says UK remains committed to Paris Agreement, but refuses to be drawn on calls for a new net zero target for mid-century
Flooding, heat waves, and droughts threaten billions of people in cities around the world by 2050 unless bold action is taken, research led by C40 cities estimates