Environmental Litigation

     Our expertise in both judicial and administrative forums, as well as alternative dispute resolution, provides the necessary skill to win.  We have successfully defended our clients against government enforcement actions under various federal environmental statutes, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and their equivalents in Illinois, Indiana, California, Michigan, Florida, Texas, and other states. 

     As a result of our past experience as lawyers for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we offer a valuable perspective in such matters.  Mr. Rosemarin served as an enforcement attorney with U.S.EPA, Region V, in Chicago, for five years.  He took the first RCRA administrative case in Region V to trial (he won.  He also prosecuted numerous cases involving PCBs, asbestos, VOCs, and many other regulated substances.  Mr. Marks previously served as a clerk to Administrative Law Judges Moran, Charneski, Nissen, and Gunning in Washington, D.C., and drafted a number of opinions on crucial issues under RCRA, CWA, CAA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  He also served as an attorney within USEPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

     To illustrate the type of litigation we handle, we commonly represent clients in Superfund enforcement matters in a variety of contexts.  The setting may be an administrative enforcement action by U.S.EPA and/or a state environmental agency.  The client may be the only respondent, or it may be one of numerous potentially responsible parties (PRPs).  Alternatively, the case may have found its way to a more formal judicial setting – state or federal court.  The client may be in the proceeding as a result of sending a small volume of hazardous substances to a Superfund site that must be remediated; or it may be there because it is a major generator, having sent a double-digit percentage of the total volume of wastes at the site.  In each case, the client’s objective will differ, and the methods implemented to solve the problem will vary accordingly.  We have represented non-PRPs (those who have been incorrectly identified as a PRP), minor PRPs (de minimis and de micromis), and major PRPs.  We draw on these experiences to best serve the client’s needs.

     Further, because we are environmental attorneys, our litigation practice extends well beyond Superfund cases.  For example, we may initiate (or defend) citizen suits under State and Federal statutes.  We also defend air and water enforcement actions.  In Illinois and other states, these matters may commence with a notice of violation from the Illinois EPA (or other state enforcement agency) relating to an alleged exceedance of the permit emission limitation for volatile organic materials, or say, particulate matter.  Or, the notice may address effluent limitations for copper or BOD, or any of numerous other potential pollutants.  (In Chicago, some cases may even be brought by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.)  Sometimes, the case may be filed by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office before the Pollution Control Board or Illinois Circuit Court.

     Often, no government agency is involved in the case.  That may be the case, for example, in class actions that allege contamination of soil or drinking water.  Private Superfund litigation, in which a party files a contribution or cost recovery action, is another example.  In any event, we both vigorously defend our clients in state or federal court, and work to amicably settle the matter, as we and our client judge necessary.  Our primary objectives are to listen to our clients and resolve the matter in the most cost-effective manner possible.  We are keenly aware of the effects that environmental cases may have on an operating business.