• Share
  • Email
  • Print

Barry M. Hartman

Partner
+1.202.778.9338
Fax +1.202.778.9100

Mr. Hartman represents companies and individuals in criminal and civil investigations, trials, and appeals primarily involving complex federal regulatory programs, with an emphasis on environmental matters, and advises clients on compliance with those programs. He also conducts internal investigations, counsels clients regarding corporate compliance programs, and represents clients in Congressional investigations regarding lobbying, ethics, and related issues. He has represented clients in industries including maritime, energy, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, recycling, chemicals, manufacturing, and real estate. Some of his more significant matters include:

  • In re Aiken County, Ferguson, et al., 645 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Lead counsel for individual petitioners in successfully obtaining Writ of Mandamus to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, finding that the NRC decision to halt the proceeding violated specific requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Click here to access the brief.
  • United States v. Mark David Radley, 632 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2011). Successfully represented individual in obtaining full dismissal of indictment in multi-defendant matter alleging conspiracy, wire fraud, manipulation, and attempted manipulation of the propane market under the Commodity Futures Trading Act and Title 18.  Click here to read the decision.
  • American Vanguard Corporation v. Jackson, 803 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011). Represented pesticide manufacturer in first successful judicial challenge to unprecedented EPA action attempting to use a unilateral “stop sale” order as a means of effectively suspending an approved registration to sell a pesticide. Click here to access the brief.
  • Lake Carriers Association et al. v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Represented domestic maritime industry in challenge to Clean Water Act Vessel General Permit program.Click here to access the brief.
  • United States v. John Cota (No. CR-08-0160) (N.D. Cal.). Represented pilot of Cosco Busan in criminal proceeding arising from Cosco Busan spill in San Francisco Bay.
  • Bates Drug Stores, Inc. v. Holder et al., No. CV 11-167 (E.D. Wash.). Represented pharmacy in successfully obtaining injunctive relief against enforcement of Drug Enforcement Administration Immediate Suspension Order under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 834(d). Click here to access the order.

Professional Background

Prior to joining K&L Gates in 1992, Mr. Hartman served in the United States Department of Justice as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resource Division (1991-92), Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1989-91) and Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General (1989).  Mr. Hartman was responsible for overseeing all U.S. government litigation arising under federal environmental, natural resource, energy, and related laws.  He reviewed, approved, and supervised civil and criminal prosecutions arising under federal environmental law, including the Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Mr. Hartman was also responsible for directing other litigation, including the defense of regulations issued by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior, and Endangered Species Act and Fifth Amendment “Takings” matters.  He handled the first appeal of a sentence for an environmental crime imposed under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and represented President George H.W. Bush in opposition to a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to the President’s authority to conduct negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

Mr. Hartman also served on several senior-level administration policy groups, including the Domestic Policy Council wetlands task force and the Department of Energy Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program interagency review group.  During his service as Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General, Mr. Hartman was a member of the Attorney General’s Judicial Selection Commission.  In 1992 he received the Edmund J. Randolph Award for outstanding service.

Mr. Hartman has testified before Congressional committees regarding the enforcement aspects of legislation, including the Oil Pollution Act.  In 2007 he was appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to serve on the department’s Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Federal Advisory Committee.

He also served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Horsehead Industries, Inc.  In addition, he served in state government, as Chief Counsel to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and Deputy General Counsel to the Governor of Pennsylvania, Dick Thornburgh.

He was the Editor-in-Chief of The EPA Enforcement Manual (Thompson Publishing Company) and has published and lectured for numerous organizations, including the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, the Washington Legal Foundation, Corporate Legal Times, the National Law Journal, the Environmental Law Institute, and the American Bar Association.  He has also been interviewed by CBS Evening News, Frontline, Fox News, PBS Nightly Business Report, and The Wall Street Journal.  He currently serves on the Editorial Advisory Board for Environmental Law 360.

Professional/Civic Activities

  • Environmental Law Institute
  • Greater Washington Board of Trade
  • American Bar Association
Maritime
  • Kulluk Oil Rig Grounding— currently advising a client on regulatory issues arising from 2012 grounding of the Kulluk Oil Rig.
  • American Vanguard Corporation v. Jackson, 803 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011). Represented pesticide manufacturer in first successful judicial challenge to unprecedented EPA action attempting to use a unilateral “stop sale” order as a means of effectively suspending an approved registration to sell a pesticide. 
  • Lake Carriers Association et al. v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).  Represented domestic maritime industry in challenge to Clean Water Act Vessel General Permit program.
  • United States v. John Cota (No. CR-08-0160) (N.D. Cal.).  Represented pilot of Cosco Busan in criminal proceeding arising from Cosco Busan spill in San Francisco Bay.
  • Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-1410 (S.Ct.).  Filed amicus curiae brief in support of petition for certiorari on the issue of whether venue provision in Article III can be determined based on the location of a vessel, regardless of where the conduct giving rise to the criminal charges occurred.
  • United States v. Frank (E.D.N.Y.).  Co-counsel for individual owners of oil recycling and sludge disposal company; six-week trial involving counts under the Toxic Substance Control Act (PCB labeling, storage, and disposal) and Title 18 (conspiracy to defraud an agency of the United States).  Clients acquitted of all charges.
  • Assisted clients in seeking variances to sulfur emission limits applicable under MARPOL Annex IV.
Pharmaceutical/Healthcare
  • Bates Drug Stores, Inc. v. Holder et al., No. CV 11-167 (E.D. Wash.). Represented pharmacy in successfully obtaining injunctive relief against enforcement of Drug Enforcement Administration Immediate Suspension Order under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 834(d).
  • Allegheny Regional Health System v. Veritus Medicare Services, (PRRB Case No. 05-1976). Challenge to interpretive rule of the CMS as an invalidly promulgated regulation.  (Challenge upheld by Provider Reimbursement Review Board.)
  • In the Matter of Apothecus Pharmaceutical Corporation, EPA Docket No. CWA 02-2004-3301.  Represented manufacturer in connection with enforcement action relating to discharge in public-owned treatment work.
  • In Re Doctors Research Group, FIFRA 01-2003-00 (2003).  Counsel to medical device manufacturer in enforcement action alleging that FDA-approved antimicrobial medical device is required to be registered as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
  • In Re Orphan Drug Designation.  Repre sented manufacturer in challenge to FDA denial of orphan drug designation; denial reversed.
Energy/Commodities
  • Representing company and employees in Federal Energy Commission investigation of alleged manipulation of energy markets.
  • Representing employees of company in Commodity Futures Trading Commission investigation of alleged manipulation of grain trading market.
  • In re Aiken County, Ferguson, et al., 645 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).  Lead counsel for individual petitioners in successfully obtaining Writ of Mandamus to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, finding that the NRC decision to halt the proceeding violated specific requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  • United States v. Mark David Radley, 632 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2011).  Successfully represented individual in obtaining full dismissal of indictment in multi-defendant matter alleging conspiracy, wire fraud, manipulation, and attempted manipulation of the propane market under the Commodity Futures Trading Act and Title 18. 
  • In Re:  USGen New England, Inc. Brayton Point Station, Appeal No:  NPDES 03-12 (Environmental Appeals Board, No. 03-12).  Advisory counsel regarding appeal of state and federal decisions governing permit conditions that imposed extensive compliance and monitoring obligations.
Manufacturing (chemical, steel, recycling)
  • United States v. Saturn Chemicals, Inc., Polysat, Inc., and Darryl Manuel, No. 08-cv-03537-AET-TJB (D. N.J.).  Represented defendants in CERCLA cost recovery action.  As a result of assertions and third-party defenses, discovery of questionable governmental conduct, and actions to include third parties, following pretrial mediation the matter settled with the clients paying approximately one-third of the original claim.
  • Rhode Island Lobstermen’s Association adv. Ekloff Marine, (D.R.I.).  Represented the seafood and fishing industry in connection with claims for damages sought pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act, as a result of damages caused by the 1996 North Cape oil spill.
  • United States v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 4-99-CV-61-AS (N.D. Ind.).  Represented aluminum manufacturing company in a § 309 Clean Water Act enforcement action brought by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which raised the novel question of whether § 309(b) of the Clean Water Act may be used to impose CERCLA-type remedies for sediment remediation in navigable waters; case settled.
  • United States v. Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Limited Partnership, Civil Action No. 94-440-1-2 (M.D. La.).  Led negotiations on behalf of a specialty chemicals manufacturer in multimedia enforcement action alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), and seeking site-wide RCRA corrective action.  Government sought $15 million plus disgorgement of profits; case resolved for $3,500,000 in penalty plus Supplemental Environmental Projects and unprecedented dispute resolution procedures.
  • United States v. Horsehead Industries, Inc., No. 3:  CV-98-0654 (M.D. Pa.); Viacom International Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Co., No. SOM–L–1739-99 (Somerset County, NJ); Paramount Communications Inc. v. Horsehead Industries, Inc., No. 125931/93 (Supreme Court, New York County); Horsehead Industries, Inc. v. Paramount Communications Inc., 258 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.).  Lead counsel on multiple litigations relating to claims for remediation costs at CERCLA sites, including claims for indemnification under Asset Purchase Agreement, cost recovery claims under CERCLA, contribution claims under CERCLA, and claims for coverage under insurance policies; successfully obtained preliminary injunction against the United States to preclude enforcement of Unilateral Administrative Order.
  • In Re Special Investigation (Tennessee).  Retained by Audit Committee of Board of Directors to investigate potential environmental compliance and related recordkeeping issues.
  • Assisted clients in seeking variances to sulfur emission limits applicable under MARPOL Annex IV.
  • In re Aiken County, Ferguson, et al., 645 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Lead counsel for individual petitioners in successfully obtaining Writ of Mandamus to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, finding that the NRC decision to halt the proceeding violated specific requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Click here to access the brief.
  • Lake Carriers Association et al. v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Represented domestic maritime industry in challenge to Clean Water Act Vessel General Permit program.
  • Coalition of Independent Review Boards adv. Department of Health and Human Services.  Challenge to final HHS action relating to Federal Advisory Committee Act.  (Agency altered position making suit unnecessary.)
  • In Re Orphan Drug Designation.  Represented manufacturer in challenge to FDA denial of orphan drug designation; denial reversed.
  • Southeast Land Dev. Assoc. L.P. v. D.C., 2005-cv-01413, 2005 WL 3211458 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2005). Challenged Mayor’s action in taking private property for a professional baseball park as an authorized public purpose for which the power of eminent domain could be exercised.
  • Allegheny Regional Health System v. Veritus Medicare Services, (PRRB Case No. 05-1976).  Challenged interpretive rule of the CMS as an invalidly promulgated regulation.  (Challenge upheld by Provider Reimbursement Review Board.)
  • Croplife America, et al. v. EPA, (No. 02-1057) (D.C. Cir.).  Challenged validity of agency policy governing use of human data as an invalidly promulgated regulation.  (Policy vacated.)
  • Zinc Corporation of America v. EPA, No. 97-1734 (D.C. Cir.).  Challenged regulations implementing Phase II of Title IV of the Clean Air Act of 1990 relating to sulfur dioxide emissions from certain industrial sources; successfully resolved litigation when EPA agreed to withdraw the final rule and re-promulgate regulations, effectively exempting client from program.
  • Medusa Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Cir.).  Represented company in Petition for Review of Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rulemaking under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; matter settled.
  • Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir.), 121 F.3d 106 (3rd Cir.).  Challenged actions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that denied a request for re-designation of an attainment area under the 1990 Clean Air Act, based on violations of the Clean Air Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act.
  • Representing company and employees in Federal Energy Commission investigation of alleged manipulation of energy markets.
  • Representing employees of company in Commodity Futures Trading Commission investigation of alleged manipulation of grain trading market.
  • Emission Control Area waivers - advised and represented three clients seeking either equivalency or technical research waivers regarding 2015 MARPOL ultra low sulfur fuel requirements.
  • United States v. Saturn Chemicals, Inc., Polysat, Inc., and Darryl Manuel, No. 08-cv-03537-AET-TJB (D. N.J.).  Represented defendants in CERCLA cost recovery action.  As a result of assertions and third-party defenses, discovery of questionable governmental conduct, and actions to include third parties, following pretrial mediation the matter settled with the clients paying approximately one-third of the original claim.
  • Rhode Island Lobstermen’s Association v. Ekloff Marine, (D.R.I.).  Represented the seafood and fishing industry in connection with claims for damages sought pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act, as a result of damages caused by the 1996 North Cape oil spill.
  • United States v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 4-99-CV-61-AS (N.D. Ind.).  Represented aluminum manufacturing company in a § 309 Clean Water Act enforcement action brought by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which raised the novel question of whether § 309(b) of the Clean Water Act may be used to impose CERCLA-type remedies for sediment remediation in navigable waters; case settled.
  • Allegheny Regional Health System v. Veritus Medicare Services, (PRRB Case No. 05-1976). Challenge to interpretive rule of the CMS as an invalidly promulgated regulation.  (Challenge upheld by Provider Reimbursement Review Board.)
  • In the Matter of Apothecus Pharmaceutical Corporation, EPA Docket No. CWA 02-2004-3301.  Represented manufacturer in connection with enforcement action relating to discharge in public-owned treatment work.
  • United States v. Adams Brothers Farming Inc., No. 00-74409 (C.D. Cal.).  Represented farm and executives in Clean Water Act enforcement action alleging that operation of farm constituted unlawful filling of waters of the United States without a section 404 permit.  Case settled; farm continues in operation.
  • In Re:  USGen New England, Inc. Brayton Point Station, Appeal No:  NPDES 03-12 (Environmental Appeals Board, No. 03-12).  Advisory counsel regarding appeal of state and federal decisions governing permit conditions that imposed extensive compliance and monitoring obligations.
  • Counseled company with respect to potential Clean Air Act enforcement actions at a facility in the southwest and one in the Midwest relating to the applicability of New Source Performance Standards and the New Source Review Standards for operations and maintenance activities.
  • United States v. Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Limited Partnership, Civil Action No. 94-440-1-2 (M.D. La.).  Led negotiations on behalf of a specialty chemicals manufacturer in multimedia enforcement action alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), and seeking site-wide RCRA corrective action.  Government sought $15 million plus disgorgement of profits; case resolved for $3,500,000 in penalty plus Supplemental Environmental Projects and unprecedented dispute resolution procedures.
  • Friends of the Earth v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation, No. 3:92-2574 (D.S.C.).  Represented company in connection with decision by United States to intervene for purposes of enforcement civil penalty judgment arising from citizen suit brought under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
  • United States v. Horsehead Industries, Inc., No. 3:  CV-98-0654 (M.D. Pa.); Viacom International Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Co., No. SOM–L–1739-99 (Somerset County, NJ); Paramount Communications Inc. v. Horsehead Industries, Inc., No. 125931/93 (Supreme Court, New York County); Horsehead Industries, Inc. v. Paramount Communications Inc., 258 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.).  Lead counsel on multiple litigations relating to claims for remediation costs at CERCLA sites, including claims for indemnification under Asset Purchase Agreement, cost recovery claims under CERCLA, contribution claims under CERCLA, and claims for coverage under insurance policies; successfully obtained preliminary injunction against the United States to preclude enforcement of Unilateral Administrative Order.
  • Represented manufacturer of FIFRA-regulated substances in connection with challenge to EPA activities with respect to the use of certain data when evaluating the risks associated with certain pesticides during the re-registration process.
  • In Re Doctors Research Group, FIFRA 01-2003-00 (2003).  Counsel to medical device manufacturer in enforcement action alleging that FDA-approved antimicrobial medical device is required to be registered as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
  • Represented power producer in connection with strategic efforts to resolve multimedia enforcement issues involving multiple states, with issues relating to the Clean Air Act New Source Review program and various Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act issues.
  • Counseled pipeline operators in nationwide Clean Water Act enforcement action.
  • Represented potentially responsible party in connection with the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site and the Lake Onondaga Superfund site.
  • United States v. Exxon Corp. (Alaska).  Led criminal and civil investigation and prosecution following the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
  • United States v. Rockwell International Corp. (Colorado).  Oversaw Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation & Recovery Act criminal investigation, prosecution, and sentencing of Department of Energy contractor at Rocky Flats facility.
  • Elk Run Coal Company v. United Mineworkers of America (S.D. W.Va.).  Represented company in damage action arising from secondary boycott activities.
  • Canterberry, et al. v. Roberts, et al., (S.D. W.Va.).  Represented plaintiffs in civil rights action prosecuted on behalf of non-union employees.
  • Falcon Coal Company v. Department of Interior (D.D.C.).  Challenged “interpretative rule” issued under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
  • Represented former Deputy Secretary of Interior in public corruption investigation.
  • Represented trustee in investigation by Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of offshore investment devices.
  • Represented Independent Review Board in connection with Congressional investigation into the antibiotic, Ketek.
  • Southeast Land Dev. Assoc. L.P. v. D.C., 2005-cv-01413, 2005 WL 3211458 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2005). Whether the Mayor’s action in taking private property for a professional baseball park constituted an authorized public purpose for which the power of eminent domain could be exercised when enabling legislation containing preconditions for the exercise of that authority and such preconditions had not been met.
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003. Counsel for amicus curiae United States on whether the application of South Carolina’s 1988 Beachfront Management Act to petitioner’s beachfront lot constituted a taking of property for which payment of compensation is required by the Fifth Amendment.
  • Florida Rock Indus., Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1109 (1995). Whether denial of permit under section 404 of Clean Water Act constituted a regulatory taking for which just compensation is due.
  • Loveladies Harbor v. United States, 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Whether denial of permit under section 404 of Clean Water Act constituted a regulatory taking for which just compensation is due. 
  • Sangre de Cristo Development Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1004 (1992). Whether a party had a compensable property interest in a lease approved by the Secretary of the Interior before the Secretary had complied with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States, 926 F.2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Whether prohibition against mining contained in legislation constituted a legislative taking for which just compensation was due.
  • United States v. Mark David Radley, 632 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2011). Successfully represented individual in obtaining full dismissal of indictment in multi-defendant matter alleging conspiracy, wire fraud, manipulation, and attempted manipulation of the propane market under the Commodity Futures Trading Act and Title 18.
  • Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-1410 (S.Ct.).  Filed amicus curiae brief in support of petition for certiorari on the issue of whether venue provision in Article III can be determined based on the location of a vessel, regardless of where the conduct giving rise to the criminal charges occurred.
  • United States v. John Cota (No. CR-08-0160) (N.D.Cal.).  Represented pilot of Cosco Busan in criminal proceeding arising from Cosco Busan spill in San Francisco Bay.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Missouri).  Represented two former senior managers of dairy operation in connection with investigation into alleged manipulation of Class III milk market in violation of Commodities Exchange Act; prosecution declined.
  • Represented former Deputy Secretary of Interior in public corruption case.
  • United States v. Frank (E.D.N.Y.).  Cocounsel for individual owners of oil recycling and sludge disposal company; six-week trial involving counts under the Toxic Substance Control Act (PCB labeling, storage, and disposal) and Title 18 (conspiracy to defraud an agency of the United States).  Clients acquitted of all charges.
  • United States v. Parkland TownCenter, No. 05-80173 (S.D. Fl.).  Represented real estate development company in trial alleging criminal violations of the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
  • Blandford v. United States, 540 U.S. 1177 (cert. denied, February 23, 2004).  Represented individual in petition for certiorari, seeking review of an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming the conviction of four individuals for violations of the Lacey Act raising issues of the interaction between U.S. and foreign law.
  • In Grand Jury Investigation (California).  Advised owner and CEO of closely held company engaged in metal finishing operation regarding criminal investigation, indictment, and sentencing issues arising under Clean Water Act and RCRA.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (New Jersey).  Represented metals recovery company in connection with investigation into transport of hazardous waste; case declined.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Louisiana).  Represented environmental compliance official of fertilizer manufacturer in connection with Clean Air Act, related criminal investigation, and grand jury proceeding.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (New Jersey; Louisiana).  Represented publicly traded specialty chemical manufacturer in federal grand jury investigation (and parallel civil enforcement proceeding) arising from the alleged improper storage, labeling, handling, and exportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes; prosecution declined.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Florida).  Represented publicly traded company in grand jury investigation arising from allegations of improper disposal of hazardous waste; prosecution declined.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Missouri).  Represented company and officers engaged in asbestos monitoring and testing activities under government contract in connection with investigation of allegations of falsified documents under the Clean Air Act; after company and individuals were named as targets, prosecution was declined.
  • In Re Criminal Investigation (California).  Represented individual and small farming entity in investigation alleged violations of Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act in California; prosecution declined.
  • United States v. Eklof Marine (Rhode Island).  Represented owner of oil in criminal investigation arising from 1996 oil spill.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Pennsylvania).  Represented large steel manufacturer in grand jury investigation (along with parallel civil enforcement proceeding) arising from alleged pattern of NPDES violations at several facilities in two states; prosecution declined.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Texas; Oklahoma; Kansas).  Advised large oil pipeline company regarding criminal investigation and parallel civil investigation and enforcement arising under the Clean Water Act and relating to alleged oil spills.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (South Carolina).  Represented biotechnical company in connection with grand jury investigation of possible crimes involving weapons of mass destruction.
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Washington, D.C.).  Represented former agency employee in connection with investigation into alleged violations of post-employment restrictions.  Matter resolved administratively.
  • In Re Special Investigation (Alaska).  Retained by Board of Directors of Alaska Native Corporation to investigation certain business practices of executives of subsidiary relating to general operations and compliance with small business regulations.
  • In Re Special Investigation (Tennessee).  Retained by Audit Committee of Board of Directors to investigate potential environmental compliance and related recordkeeping issues.
  • In Re Criminal Investigation (Texas).  Represented diversified manufacturer in connection with criminal investigation arising from disposal of used oil from various facilities.
  • In Re Criminal Investigation (National).  Represented photo processing manufacturer in multifacility, national environmental criminal investigation relating to voluntary disclosure by company.
  • Member of investigative team for examiner in WorldCom bankruptcy, one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history.
  • Represented various clients in connection with renewable energy projects raising issues under the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
  • In Re Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.  Represented adjacent landowner in connection with challenge to decision by wildlife refuge to construct boardwalk on refuge without first complying with NEP and Refuge Act requirements.
  • City of Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Advising the City of Santa Fe with respect to issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in connection with applications to construct and operate a surface water diversion project on the Rio Grande River in the Santa Fe National Forest.
  • Mortgage Bankers Association.  Represented mortgage banking clients in connection with evaluation of whether certain Katrina-related relief programs funded under special appropriations complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and related environmental analysis obligations contained in regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Village of Barrington, et al.v. Surface Transportation Board (No. 09-1073) (D.C. Cir).  NEPA challenge to decision of Surface Transportation Board to permit transaction resulting in significant rerouting of rail traffic from the City of Chicago to its perimeter.
  • Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Southeastern Federal Power Customers Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, et al., 301 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004), reversed, 514 F.3d 1316 (D.C. Cir. Feb 05, 2008).  Counsel to Florida DEP in dispute over water rights allocation issues relating to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River (“ACF”) Compact, as well as issues under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Water Supply Act, and the Flood Control Act.
  • American Trucking Ass’n v. Browner, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir.), reh’g granted in part and denied in part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, sub. nom. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).  Represented the Small Business Survival Committee, the Native American Business Association, and Judy’s Bakery in a challenge to certain National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated under the federal Clean Air Act regulations.
  • City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999).  Amicus curiae in successfully defending the Federal Highway Administration’s decision to approve a new major bridge construction project near Washington, D.C., against challenges brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Transportation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
  • New Jersey v. Long Island Power Authority, 30 F.3d 403 (3rd Cir.).  Successfully defended challenge to plan for shipment of fuel to Pennsylvania utility brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Atomic Energy Act.
  • Kleissler v. United States Forest Service, 183 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.).  Represented a coalition of businesses, schools and others intervening to defend against efforts to enjoin implementation of the Forest Management Plan for the Allegheny National Forest; all claims dismissed either by the District Court or on appeal at the Third Circuit.
  • Falcon Coal Company v. Department of Interior (D.D.C.).  Challenged “interpretative rule” issued under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
  • New Mexico, et al. v. Watkins, et al., 969 F.2d 1122 (D.C. Cir.).  Challenge to National Environmental Policy Act Secretary’s modification and extension of land withdrawal to permit a test using radioactive waste.
  • Idaho, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 945 F.2d 295 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to environmental assessment prepared by the Department of Energy regarding continued receipt and storage of spent fuel from the demonstration reactor under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Municipality of Anchorage, et al. v. United States, 980 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to memorandum of agreement between the EPA and the Department of the Army under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Griffin v. Yuetter, et al., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21795 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to Cleveland National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Lane County Audubon Society v. Cy Jamison, et al., 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s Guidelines for Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Waterford Citizens’ Association v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287 (4th Cir.).  Challenge to whether EPA’s Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. James B. Busey, IV, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994.  Whether an environmental impact statement prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on an application by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority was deficient for failure to give detailed consideration to the alternative of having the private operator of the hub remain at its present temporary location in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
  • General Counsel to American Pyrotechnics Association.
  • General Counsel to Council on Endangered Species Act Reliability.
  • Provided background analysis and briefing to multiple investment companies, hedge funds, and similar organizations regarding Gulf oil spill.
  • Outside Ethics Counsel to the Chesapeake Regional Coalition 2012 seeking to bring the 2012 Olympics to the Washington/Baltimore Region.  Developed Ethics Structure for submission of the Washington, D.C. 2012 Bid City Proposal.
  • Assisted clients in preparing comments on various rulemaking proceedings conducted by EPA, Department of Interior, OSHA, and other federal agencies.
  • Represented energy company in connection with issues relating to permits and other authorizations and approvals issued by Bureau of Land Management, Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and Bureau of Reclamation under various federal laws.
  • Advised international glass manufacturer regarding requirements of the state law toxics in packaging statutes, and related enforcement issues arising under Barriers to Trade Act.
  • American Council on Education.  Represented association of higher education institutions regarding environmental compliance issues.
  • Advised a variety of clients with respect to the environmental aspects of transactions, including a publicly held limited partnership selling 80 fastfood restaurants nationwide; a national company in connection with potential acquisition of wastewater facility; an estate selling former landfill site; and a limited partnership selling interest in an industrial facility.
  • Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries.  Assisted clients in preparing comments on proposed “Definition of Solid Waste” under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; final regulation largely followed Institute’s comments.
  • Advised a multinational company regarding a variety of strategic options for dealing with regulations promulgated under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments relating to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons.
  • Developing corporate compliance programs (environmental and otherwise) for biotechnology, manufacturing, utility, and natural resource companies and related presentations to senior corporate management.
  • Prepared comments on behalf of several companies to the United States Sentencing Commission advisory committee regarding its proposal for sentencing guidelines applicable to corporations convicted of environmental offenses.
  • Advised several clients with respect to Superfund reform issues.
  • Advised several public companies with respect to disclosure of potential environmental liabilities in connection with SEC filings.
  • Co-author, Continuing to Adjust Penalties: The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, U.S. Government Enforcement Alert, Feb. 24, 2017.
  • Speaker, “Ethical Issues Involving Parallel Proceedings; “When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It,” presented at the 28th Annual Texas Environmental Superconference, August 5, 2016.
  • Co-author, “An Air of Change in CERCLA Liability? Pakootas v. Teck Cominco and CERCLA's Federal Permit Shield” Association of Corporate Counsel of South Carolina Newsletter, June 2016.
  • Co-author, “Take Me Out to the Ballgame?” Asked the Inspector: Saying “Yes” May Now Be a Federal Crime,” White Collar Crime/ Criminal Defense Alert, May 10, 2016.
  • Co-author, “Clean Water Rule Stayed Nationwide,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, October 14, 2015.
  • Co-author, “Where You Operate Matters: the Fifth Circuit Widens the Split on MBTA Liability,” U.S. Environmental, Land, and Natural Resources and Energy Alert, September 14, 2015.
  • Co-author, “Eagles Back in the Nest: FWS 30-Year Eagle “Take” Rule Vacated Less than Two Years after Implementation,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources, and Energy Alert, September 2, 2015.
  • Co-author, “Navigating CERCLA Settlements in an Age of Uncertainty: Fallout From Ameripride Services,” Environmental Law Reporter, September 2015.
  • Co-author, “EPA and the Army Corps Issue Final Clean Water Rule, but Does This New “Line in the Water” Clarify, Expand or Narrow Clean Water Act Jurisdiction?”, Energy Alert, June 19, 2015.
  • Co-author, “Bats in the Balance: Northern Long-Eared Bat Listing and Interim 4(d) Rule,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, May 6, 2015.
  • How Long is the ESA’s Arm on LNG Projects?,” http://www.law360.com/california/articles/642819, Law360, April 14, 2015.
  • Co-author, “Perez v. MBA Shines A Light On ‘Shadow Regulations,’” Law360, March 16, 2015.
  • Co-author, “EPA and the Army Corps Propose Rules Expanding Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Potentially Affecting Everyone Who Uses Lands Where Water Might Be Present,” State Bar of Texas, Corporate Counsel Section Fall 2014 Newsletter.
  • Co-speaker, “The New 2015 Sulfur Emissions Limits for Vessels Operating in U.S. Waters,” December 18, 2014, K&L Gates Webinar.
  • Co-author, “U.S. Export-Import Bank Financing of Australian LNG Project Avoids Endangered Species Act Challenge – For Now,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, Alerts/Updates, Aug. 28, 2014.
  • Co-author, “In Limbo,” Great Lakes/Seaway Review, April-June 2014.
  • Speaker, “The Obama Administration’s Ability to Use Executive Orders (EOs) to Change Energy, Economic Policy,” presented at GTL North America Conference, June 5, 2014.
  • “EPA’s Expanded ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Definition: Navigating the Unprecedented Reach and Scope of New Rule,” presented via webinar on May 28, 2014. Strafford Publications.
  • “Facing Two Strikes, EPA Gets a Hit: Supreme Court Upholds EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, May 1, 2014.
  • Co-author, “The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository: What’s Next?,” Nuclear Law Committee Newsletter (Vol. 6, No. 1, April 2014).
  • “Federal Appellate Court Stays Initial Date for Meeting New Ballast Water Discharge Limits —But Only for Canadian Shipowners Association Members,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, Alerts/Updates, April 11, 2014.
  • “EPA and the Army Corps Propose Rules Expanding Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Potentially Affecting Everyone Who Uses Lands Where Water Might Be Present,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, April 3, 2014.
  • Guest Panelist, “EPA, Coast Guard Disagreement on How to Address Industry Obligations to Meet January 1, 2014 Implementation Deadline for New Ballast Water Discharge Limits Poses Considerable Conundrum to Owners and Maybe Worse. What Owners and Operators Need to Know,” The Connecticut Maritime Association’s Shipping 2014 Trade Conference, March 18, 2014.
  • Co-author, “Challenge to U.S. Export-Import Bank LNG Financing Raises Questions About Application of US Environmental Law to US Funded Projects in Other Countries,” Global Government Solutions® 2014 Annual Outlook, K&L Gates Publication, Alerts/Updates, February 2014.
  • Co-Presenter, “Ballast Water: The Great EPA/USCG Balancing Act,” Ballast Water Management Summit, Feb. 25-27, 2014.
  • “Going Ballistic Over Ballast Water Regulations,” Environmental Law360, Public Policy Law360 Articles, January 23, 2014.
  • “EPA and Coast Guard Disagree on How to Address Industry Obligations to Meet January 1, 2014 Implementation Deadline For New Ballast Water Discharge Limits,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, January 6, 2014.
  • “U.S. Court of Appeals Orders the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Resume Yucca Mountain Licensing Proceeding, Upholding Rule of Law Over Politics,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, August 15, 2013.
  • Co-author, “The New 2013 Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance: Certainty for the Industry or Dust in the Wind?,”Energy Alert; Alerts/Updates; May 30, 2013.
  • Environmental Policy Quarterly; K&L Gates Publication; Alerts/Updates; Spring 2013.
  • “EPA Issues 2013 Vessel General Permit;” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert; Alerts/Updates; April 2, 2013.
  • Co-author, “EPA Proposes Revisions to the Renewable Fuel Program to Prevent Fraud and Protect Innocent Traders in Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”); Allows Limited Use of Program Immediately,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources and Global Government Solutions; Public Policy and Law Alert, February 25, 2013.
  • Global Government Solutions® 2013:  Annual Outlook, K&L Gates Publication.
  • Co-author, “Homer City—Has the D.C. Circuit Signaled an Alternate Approach to Judicial Review of Agency Regulations?,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources and Appellate, Constitutional and Government Litigation Alert, October 11, 2012.
  • Co-author, “D.C. Circuit Calls Strike Two on EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, August 24, 2012.
  • Co-author, “Two Federal Decisions Signal Further Expansion of Criminal Liability for Environmental Crimes,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert. July 25, 2012.
  • Co-author, “Sixth Amendment Requirement That Juries Find Facts Necessary to Impose Fines Above Statutory Maximum Raises New Questions for Environmental Prosecutions,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources and Government Enforcement Alert, July 25, 2012.
  • Co-author, “European Union May Adopt More Stringent Sulfur Content Limits for Marine Fuels,” Maritime Alert, June 13, 2012.
  • Co-author, “Supreme Court Rules that U.S. EPA Unilateral Compliance Orders Under the Clean Water Act Are Final Actions Judicially Reviewable,” EPA Compliance Alert, March 22, 2012.
  • Guest Panelist, “Current Issues and Developments in Admiralty Law:  An Overview of Changes in Environmental Regulations of Vessels - Emission Control Areas, the Next Vessel General Permit, Ballast Exchange Proposals and Ship Scrapping,” The Connecticut Maritime Association’s Shipping 2012 Trade Conference, March 21, 2012. 
  • Guest Lecturer, “Private Property Rights and Urban Development for Urban Studies Course:  Developing the City: Urban Real Estate Market,” University of Pennsylvania, February 16, 2012.
  • Co-author, “EPA Issues Draft of the Next Vessel General Permit for Public Review—Comments Due By February 21, 2012,” Maritime, Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, December 9, 2011.
  • Guest Speaker, Environmental Law Institute Boot Camp Course on Environmental Law, “Civil and Criminal Environmental Enforcement,” 2002-2011.
  • Co-author,“New Criminal Charges Under Migratory Bird Treaty Act Create More Complexity for Energy Companies,” Energy and Utilities/Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, September 8, 2011.
  • Co-author, “What’s a Waste: EPA’s Proposed Redefinition and Its Impact on Recycling,” Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, August 2, 2011.
  • Co-author, “Can Government Contractors Certify That Their Goods and Services “Exist in Productive Harmony” with Nature? New Rule for Federal Green Contracting,” Government Contracts/Environmental, Land and Natural Resources/Construction Alert, June 21, 2011.
  • Co-author, “Post-Gulf Spill Legislation Proposed to Enhance Penalties for Clean Water Act Violations,” Public Policy and Law Alert, June 21, 2011.
  • Guest Speaker, ExecSense Webinars, “How to Conduct an Internal Investigation as a COO,” May 16, 2011.
  • Guest Panelist, “Legal Session: Environmental Regulation Emerging and Developing Areas Impacting the Maritime Industries,” Connecticut Maritime Association Shipping 2011, March 23, 2011.
  • Guest Panelist, “Environmental Regulation Panel:  The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill & Lessons from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,” Administrative Law Review Symposium, American University Washington College of Law, January 31, 2011.
  • Co-author, “Spillover from the Spill,” Maritime Alert, August 18, 2010.
  • Co-author, “Maritime Industry Faced with New Proposals for Regulating Air and Water Discharges as a Result of Environmental Group Action; Comment Opportunities Limited,” Maritime and Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert. July 28, 2010.
  • Co-author, “What Do the Decisions in U.S. v. Skilling and U.S. v. Black Really Mean for Corruption Prosecutions?,” Government Enforcement:  White Collar Crime/Criminal Defense Alert, July 23, 2010.
  • Co-author, “International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) Approves Authority for U.S. to Impose Stringent New Air Emission Standards for Large Oceangoing Vessels,” Maritime Alert, April 6, 2010.
  • Co-author, “EPA Issues Preliminary Study on Vessel Discharges for Fishing Industry and Smaller Cargo Vessels,” Maritime Alert, March 30, 2010.
  • Guest Panelist, “Legal rights of owners/operators when faced with citizen suit and government enforcement actions under U.S. Environmental Laws,” Connecticut Maritime Association’s Shipping 2010 Conference, March 23, 2010.
  • Co-author, “The Brady Bunch of Cases and Their Extended Family:  Recent Prosecutorial Misconduct Cases in Federal Court, the Department of Justice Response, and Observations on Defense Strategies,” Government Enforcement Alert, January 12, 2010.
  • Co-author, “The Winds of Change Continue to Blow: Coast Guard Proposes New Ballast Water Discharge Limitations,” Maritime and Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, September 9, 2009.
  • Co-author, “The Perfect Storm Continues:  Proposed Ballast Water and Air Emissions Regulations Present More New Challenges for the Maritime Industry; Opportunity to Comment Is Limited,” Maritime and Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, August 28, 2009.
  • Co-author, “Reminder:  Vessel Owners and Operators Face a September 19, 2009 Deadline for New Filing Requirements under Federal Clean Water Act,” Maritime and Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert, August 27, 2009.
  • Co-author, “A Chance to Get It Right: Federal Clean Water Act Requirements,” The Maritime Executive Magazine, July 9, 2009.
  • Co-author, “Déjà Vu All Over Again:  Environmentalists Petition for Unprecedented Expansion of Requirements for Vessel Sewage Discharges,” Maritime and Environmental Alert, May 11, 2009.
  • Co-author, “Winds Change for the Maritime Industry with New Climate Change Legislation,” Maritime and Environmental Alert, April 20, 2009.
  • “What to Expect in Environmental Enforcement in the Obama Administration,” Shipping 2009, March 25, 2009.
  • Guest Lecturer, “Private Property Rights and Urban Redevelopment” for Urban Studies Course, “Developing the City:  Urban Real Estate Markets,” University of Pennsylvania, February 17, 2009.
  • Co-author, EPA Issues Final Clean Water Act Permit for Incidental Discharges From Vessels, Maritime and Environmental Alert,January 9, 2009.
  • Co-author, “Time and Place Are Everything:  When an ‘Honest Day’s Work’ Becomes ‘Honest Services Fraud,’” WCC Bulletin, Newsletter of the ABA Criminal Justice Section’s White Collar Crime Committee, August 2008.
  • “Town Hall Meeting on EPA’s Newly Proposed Vessel Discharge Rules,” Maritime TV Webcast, July 22, 2008.
  • Co-author, “California Air Resources Board Issues Draft Clean-Fuel Regulations for Oceangoing Vessels,” Maritime Alert, June 17, 2008.
  • “Vessel Discharge Permits - A New Reality for the Maritime World,” K&L Gates Webinar, June 20, 2008.
  • “Managing Environmental Law and Regulation in Shipping,” Lloyd’s Maritime Academy, London, U.K., April 2008.
  • “Twenty Questions You Cannot Be Afraid to Ask about Government Agencies that Investigate ‘White Collar’ Cases,” Working with Government Agencies in White Collar Law, Thomson Reuters/Aspatore, 2008.
  • Co-author, “Ninth Circuit Holds that California’s ‘Marine Vessel Rules’ Are Preempted by Federal Clean Air Act,” Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources Alert, March 6, 2008.
  • Co-author, “Homeland Security Issues New Regulations Requiring Inventories, Assessments and Security Programs at Chemical Facilities,” Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources, and Homeland Security Alert, November 6, 2007.
  • Co-author, “The Perfect Storm:  Ballast Water Discharges Face Potential New Regulatory, Legislative and Judicial Rules,” Maritime Alert,September 5, 2007.
  • “Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Standards: Key questions raised by the Department of Homeland Security’s New Regulations,” presented at CSHEMA 2007 Annual Conference, July 21-25, 2007.
  • “Navigating Audit Disclosure Decisions:  ‘Your Rights and Obligations,’” presented at CSHEMA-PRIZIM Regional EH&S Seminar, April 16 and 17, 2007.
  • Co-author, “U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Fourth Circuit’s Duke Energy Decision,” Environmental Alert, April 2007.
  • Co-author, “Nanotechnology: An Update on Business Opportunities and Regulatory Challenges,” Journal of Biolaw and Business, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2007.
  • Co-author, “Homeland Security to Regulate Chemical Facilities,” Facilities Manager, January/February 2007.
  • Co-author, “Nanomedicines in Europe: An Opportunity for Investment,” Nanotechnology Alert, February 2007.
  • Co-author, “Nanotechnology—Business Opportunities & Regulatory Challenges,” Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, December 2006.
  • “Keys to Kelo: Unlocking the Secrets of Eminent Domain,” presented at Brownfields 2006: Recent Developments in the Exercise of Eminent Domain, November 2006.
  • “ The Rapanos and Carabell Rulings:  Consequences for Clean Water Act Enforcement, Regulation, and Compliance ,” July 18, 2006, via webcast.
  • “Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law,” presented at Thirteenth Annual Advanced ALI-ABA Course of Study for the Defense and Government Bars, Washington, D.C., May 18-19, 2006.
  • “Government & Internal Corporate Investigations:  Responding to Concerns About Alleged Wrongdoing,”presented at The National Association of Corporate Directors, Palo Alto, CA, May 4, 2006.
  • “The Legal and Strategic Guide to E-Discovery:  Best Practices for Corporate Counsel,” One Size Does Not Fit All:  Successfully Managing Specific E-Discovery Practice Areas:  Government Investigations, New York, NY, September 29-30, 2005.
  • Co-author, “Legal Framework for Bioremediation,” Chapter 3 in the American Society for Microbiology’s Applied Microbial Solutions for Real-World Environmental Cleanup, April 2005.
  • Co-author, “Guidelines Are Just Guidelines:  The Impact on Corporations of the Supreme Court’s Decision on The United States Sentencing Guidelines,” White Collar/Criminal Defense Alert, January 2005.
  • Co-author, “Lawsuit Challenges Field Testing of Genetically Modified Plants,” Life Science FOCUS, March 2004.
  • “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Refocuses on Environmental Crimes,” Environmental Alert, February 2004.
  • “With Tighter Homeland Security Measures, Users of Biological Agents Must Meet Substantial New Regulatory Obligations—Applications for Clearance Due November 12, 2003,” Homeland Security Bulletin, December 2003.
  • “EPA Environmental Justice ‘Toolkit’ Presents a New Challenge for Businesses Seeking to Relocate or Expand,” Environmental Alert, December 2003.
  • “Managing Your Homeland Security Issues,” presented at IMLA’s 68th Annual Conference, October 12-15, 2003.
  • “Homeland Security and Current Issues Facing Local Governments,” presented at IMLA’s 68th Annual Conference , October 12-15, 2003.
  • “Homeland Security Spurs New Regulatory Requirements for Over 5000 Businesses with Facilities Near Ports, Rivers, Lakes, Streams and Wetlands,” Homeland Security Bulletin, September 2003.
  • Tennessee Valley Authority v. Whitman:  Is EPA’s Preferred Environmental Enforcement Weapon—the Compliance Order—Unconstitutional?,” Environmental Alert, July 2003.
  • “Senate Considers Competing Bills to Address Security at Chemical Manufacturing and Processing Facilities,” Homeland Security Bulletin, July 2003.
  • Co-author, “EPA Enforcement Orders Found Lacking in Due Process Protection,” Legal Backgrounder, July 25, 2003.
  • Co-author, “U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation Issue New Rules Requiring Background Records Checks Prior to Licensing Operators of Vehicles That Transport Hazardous Materials in Commerce,” Homeland Security Bulletin, June 2003.
  • “Environmental Reporting Requirements:  How Are They Affected by Sarbanes-Oxley?—Environmental Lawyers’ Reporting Obligations Under Sox307, Environmental Laws and Ethical Rules:  An Analytical Construct,” presented at the Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Laws, ALI-ABA Conference, Washington, D.C., May 8, 2003.
  • Co-author, “Homeland Security Expands to Regulation of the Manufacture, Use, Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Substances and Materials, Including Chemical and Biological Agents,” Homeland Security Bulletin, April 2003.
  • “Prosecution of Environmental Crimes,” National Conference of the Academy of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers, Louisville, KY, October 2, 2002.
  • “Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Laws,” sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute, Newark, NJ, September 18, 2002.
  • “Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law,” sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute, Allegheny County Bar Association, and Western Pennsylvania Chapter, American Corporate Counsel Association, Pittsburgh, PA, September 12, 2002.
  • “Pursuing Environmental Crimes:  The Role of the Department of Justice,” Washington Legal Foundation, May 14, 2002.
  • “Comments Due on Possible Revisions to Corporate Sentencing Guidelines,” Counsel’s Advisory, Washington Legal Foundation, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 10, 2002.
  • “Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law,” sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute and the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, American Corporate Counsel Association, April 10, 2002.
  • Co-author, “MACT Hammer Poised to Strike,” Environmental Alert, April 2002.
  • “Federal Enforcement of Environmental Laws After September 11,” Environmental Alert, December 2001.
  • “Challenging Agency Rulemaking in the Appellate Courts,” Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP Appellate Briefs, February 1998, Vol. 2, No. 2.
  • “Outlook for the Legal Profession in 1996,” The Greater Washington Board of Trade News, Business Outlook, Vol. 50, No. 7.
  • “Privileges and Immunities Under Environmental Audit Legislation,” American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, Fifth Environmental Enforcement Conference, Washington, D.C., September 7-8, 1995.
  • “How Environmental Washington Works,” The Environmental Management Development Institute, Washington, D.C., July 12, 1995.
  • “New Development and Emerging Trends in Environmental Liability,” The Strategic Environmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Conference, Washington, D.C., June 1-2, 1995.
  • “State Road Projects Vital to Economic Growth:  Another Victim of the Clean Air Act?” Washington Legal Foundation, Legal Opinion Letter, Vol. 5, No. 7, March 17, 1995.
  • “New Developments and Emerging Trends in Environmental Liability,” Executive Enterprises, Inc., Environmental Accounting Conference, Washington, D.C., October 20-21, 1994.
  • “Legal Perspective on Air Quality/Transportation Requirements,” The Greater Washington Board of Trade Air Quality Forum, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
  • “Beware Environmental Defendants:  Failure to Understand Title 18 Can Get You 20,” Washington Legal Foundation, Legal Backgrounder, Vol. 9, No. 22, July 1, 1994.
  • “New Developments and Emerging Trends in Environmental Liability,” Paper presented at Executive Enterprises, Inc., Insurance and Environmental Liability, New York, New York, May 12-13, 1994; June 23-24, 1994.
  • “Summary of Federal Action Regarding Electric and Magnetic Fields,” The EMF Regulation and Litigation Institute, Orlando, FL, April 14-15, 1994.
  • “The Coastal Zone Management Act:  Unexpected Impacts on Environmental Permitting,” Journal of Environmental Auditing, Vol. 3, No. 3, Summer 1994.
  • Co-author, “A Primer on Environmental Auditing,” The National Legal Center, White Paper, Vol. 6, No. 2, July 1994.
  • “SEC/EPA/DOJ Cooperation and the Financial Reporting of Environmental Liabilities:  How In-House Counsel Should Value Risk in Light of New Government Initiatives,” Environmental Corporate Counsel Institute, Chicago, Illinois, November 1-2, 1993.
  • “Louisiana-Pacific Case Chinks Armor of Corporate Officer Liability,” Inside Environment, July 1993.
  • “Federal Environmental Law Affecting Investments,” Professional’s Guide to Investment in the USA, April 1993.
  • “The Effect of the Clean Air Act Amendments Upon Local Businesses,” Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business Law Update, Spring 1993.
  • “Transferring 20 Years of NPDES Experience to the New Clear Air Permits:  The ‘Takings’ Issue,” Environmental Permitting, Summer 1993.
  • Co-author, “The Present Use of the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine in the Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Laws,” Environmental Law Reporter, News & Analysis, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, March 1993.
  • Co-author, “Debarment, Suspension, Contractor Listing, and Permit Blocks,” chapter in EPA Enforcement Manual, 1993.
  • “How Environmental Compliance Programs May Miss Their Mark,” National Law Journal, Corporate Counsel Section, December 14, 1992.
  • “The Civil Environmental Litigation Explosion/The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Environmental Crimes,” Pennsylvania Bar Association, Mid-Year Meeting, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1992.
  • “Potential Criminal Liability of Environmental Auditors for Concealing Environmental Violations Committed by Others,” Working Papers, Institute of Environmental Auditing, Vol. VI, No. 5, January 1993.
  • “Overview of Clean Air Act Enforcement Provisions,” speech presented at Operating Permits ‘92 Seminar, Washington, D.C., September 14-15, 1992.
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council:  The Takings Test Turns a Corner,” Environmental Law Reporter, News & Analysis, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, January 1993.
  • “Confidentiality Protection for Environmental Assessment Reports:  Protecting Internal Investigations Against Disclosures to Regulators, Prosecutors, or Third Parties:  Policy Solutions,” Paper presented at American Bar Association, Section of Business Law, San Francisco, California, August 11, 1992.
  • “Criminal Liability of Environmental Consultants Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 183 and 4,” Institute for Environmental Auditing, Kansas City, Missouri, June 25, 1992.
  • Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-1410 (S.Ct.).  Filed amicus curiae brief in support of petition for certiorari on the issue of whether venue provision in Article III can be determined based on the location of a vessel, regardless of where the conduct giving rise to the criminal charges occurred.
  • In re Aiken County, Ferguson, et al., 645 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).  Lead counsel for individual petitioners in successfully obtaining Writ of Mandamus to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, finding that the NRC decision to halt the proceeding violated specific requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  • United States v. Mark David Radley, 632 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2011).  Successfully represented individual in obtaining full dismissal of indictment in multi-defendant matter alleging conspiracy, wire fraud, manipulation, and attempted manipulation of the propane market under the Commodity Futures Trading Act and Title 18. 
  • Lake Carriers Association et al. v. EPA , 652 F.3d 1(D.C. Cir. 2011).  Represented domestic maritime industry in challenge to Clean Water Act Vessel General Permit program.
  • American Trucking Ass’n v. Browner, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir.), reh’g granted in part and denied in part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, sub. nom. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).  Represented the Small Business Survival Committee, the Native American Business Association, and Judy’s Bakery in a challenge to certain National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated under the federal Clean Air Act regulations.
  • City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999).  Amicus curiae in successfully defending the Federal Highway Administration’s decision to approve a new major bridge construction project near Washington, D.C. against challenges brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Transportation Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
  • Zinc Corporation of America v. EPA, No. 97-1734 (D.C. Cir.).  Challenge to regulations implementing Phase II of Title IV of the Clean Air Act of 1990 relating to sulfur dioxide emissions from certain industrial sources.  Successfully resolved litigation when EPA agreed to withdraw the final rule and re-promulgate regulations, effectively exempting client from program.
  • United States v. Olin Corporation, 107 F.3d 1506.  Amicus curiae on behalf of seventeen members of Congress and the Washington Legal Foundation, addressing whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is retroactive and is applied consistent with Congress’s Commerce clause authority.
  • New Jersey v. Long Island Power Authority, 30 F.3d 403 (3rd Cir.).  Challenge to plan for shipment of fuel to Pennsylvania utility brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Atomic Energy Act.
  • Medusa Corporation v. EPA (D.C. Cir.).  Represented company in Petition for Review of Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rulemaking under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  Matter settled.
  • National Wildlife Federation adv. Fednav et al. (2009) Represented Canadian shipping company served with notice of citizen suit under the Clean Water Act for failure to have an NPDES permit for the discharge of ballast water in the Great Lakes.  After a number of meetings with the group and the U.S. Department of Justice, the group was persuaded to withdraw the notice prior to filing a formal complaint.
  • The Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 831.  Amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation, in support of Petitioner, that the Emergency Protection and Community Right to Know Act does not authorize citizen suits for wholly past violations of that law.
  • Everett R. Rhoades, M.D. v. Grover Vigil, 508 U.S. 182.  Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that statements made in congressional committee reports and hearings on lump-sum appropriations bills, together with general notions of the federal “trust” responsibility for Indians, constitute “law to apply” for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Protective Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), of agency action affecting Indians.
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003.  Counsel for amicus curiae United States on whether the application of South Carolina’s 1988 Beachfront Management Act to petitioner’s beachfront lot constituted a taking of property for which payment of compensation is required by the Fifth Amendment.
  • City of Burlington v. Ernest Dague, Sr., 505 U.S. 557.  Whether court, in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee award under Section 1002(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6972(e), or Section 505(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1365(d), enhanced the fee award above the lodestar amount in order to reflect the fact that the attorneys had taken the case on a contingent-fee basis, thus assuming the risk of receiving no attorney’s fees at all.
  • New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144.  Whether the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Sangre de Cristo Development Co., Inc. v. United States, 932 F.2d 891 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1004.  Whether a party had a compensable property interest in a lease approved by the Secretary of the Interior before the Secretary had complied with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 50 U.S. 251.  Whether Yakima County may impose an ad valorem tax on real property situated within the boundaries of the Yakima Indian Reservation that is owned in fee by the Yakima Nation or individual members of the Yakima Nation; and whether Yakima County may impose a state excise tax on the sale of real property on the Reservation by the Yakima Nation or its members.
  • Trapper Mining, Inc. v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., 923 F.2d 774 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1057.  Whether petitioners’ coal leases, which incorporate the statutory provision, permitted Congress to reduce the readjustment interval from 20 years to 10 years effective at the expiration of the 20-year readjustment period; and whether the 1976 amendments to the statute, 30 U.S.C. 207(a), reduced the readjustment interval of petitioners’ coal leases from 20 years to 10 years at the expiration of the 20-year readjustment period.
  • Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States of America, 937 F.2d 1539(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 910.  Whether the United States breached a duty of “fair and honorable dealings” by making navigational improvements to the Arkansas River that damaged the Cherokee Nation’s tribal property interests.
  • Ludlow Park Homeowners Associate, Inc., et al. v. County of Westchester, NY, et al., 930 F.2d 909 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 813.  Whether the district court properly took jurisdiction of this proceeding under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651.
  • Mesa Operating Limited Partnership v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 17 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1058.  Whether the court of appeals erred in upholding the Department of the Interior’s determination that its regulations require petitioner to pay royalties for natural gas produced on federal leases based on the value of the gas placed in marketable condition, and not on the value of raw gas at the time of extraction.
  • Foust v. Lujan and Northern Arapaho and Shoshone Indian Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation, 942 F.2d 712, cert. denied, 503 U.S. 984.  Whether, under 43 U.S.C. 1746, the Secretary of the Interior may correct a patent disposing of public land so as to grant title to land that had been withdrawn from entry (as a powersite reserve) at the time the land was settled, and whether the land at issue—which was conveyed to the United States pursuant to an agreement calling for the government to pay any proceeds derived from sales of the land to Indian Tribes and then was purportedly patented to non-Indians—is properly characterized as “public land” or “Indian land” for purposes of 43 U.S.C. 1746.
  • The Penn Cent. Corp. v. United States of America, 944 F.2d 164 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 906.  Whether the confirmation of a railroad company’s reorganization in 1978, under Section 77(f) of the former Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 205(f) (1976), bars statutory claims against the reorganized company arising from the post-confirmation enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
  • United States v. John W. Rutana, 18 F.3d 363 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 907.  Whether 18 U.S.C. 3742(b) requires the government to furnish written certification—no later than the filing of a notice of appeal—that the Solicitor General has authorized an appeal of an otherwise final sentence, and whether the possible impact of the defendant’s imprisonment on his employees warranted a downward departure from the range of imprisonment indicated by the Sentencing Guidelines to a term of probation.
  • United States and Pueblo of Santo Domingo v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 984.  Whether Section 4 of the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924, ch. 331, 43 Stat. 637, as amended by Section 6 of the Act of May 31, 1933, ch. 45, 48 Stat. 110-111, which on its face bars only actions by Pueblo Indians, implicitly bars this action brought by the United States, in its sovereign capacity, to quiet title to land granted by Spain.
  • Lewis Stephen Work, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 921 F.2d 1394 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 956.  Whether the resolution of an enforcement action brought by the government under Section 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), precludes citizens from prosecuting the same violations against the same alleged polluter in a separate citizen suit that had been initiated under Section 505(a)(1) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), prior to commencement of the government’s action.
  • Wagner Seed Company, Inc. v. George H.W. Bush, 946 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 970.  Whether the court of appeals properly accorded Chevron deference to the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the reimbursement provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606(b)(2).
  • Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. State of Washington, et al., 938 F.2d 146 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 997.  Whether the grant of criminal jurisdiction set forth in the Act of Aug. 15, 1953, ch. 505, 67 Stat. 588 (Public Law 280), permits a state to enforce its civil laws prohibiting speeding and other motor vehicle infractions against Indians on an Indian reservation.
  • Herman Grey v. United States of America, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1057.  Whether petitioners are entitled by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 100-512, 102 Stat. 2549 (1988), to recover money damages from the United States for the alleged deprivation of water rights.
  • Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. James B. Busey, IV, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994.  Whether an environmental impact statement prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on an application by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority was deficient for failure to give detailed consideration to the alternative of having the private operator of the hub remain at its present temporary location in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
  • Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau, Inc. v. United States, 922 F.2d 704 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 953.  Whether, in an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of petitioners’ motion to intervene, the court of appeals erred by declining to rule on petitioners’ contention, raised for the first time in a filing made after the court of appeals issued its opinion in this case, that this suit was barred on sovereign immunity grounds.
  • Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 00-2206 (CKK/JMF) (D.D.C.).  Represented a partnership of public officials and private business leaders opposing a lawsuit filed by environmental groups challenging the EPA’s re-designation of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area to attainment status.
  • Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir.), 121 F.3d 106 (3rd Cir.).  Challenged actions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that denied a request for re-designation of an attainment area under the 1990 Clean Air Act, based on violations of the Clean Air Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act.
  • Kleissler v. United States Forest Service, 183 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.).  Represented a coalition of businesses, schools, and others intervening to defend against efforts to enjoin implementation of the Forest Management Plan for the Allegheny National Forest; all claims dismissed either by the District Court or on appeal at the Third Circuit.
  • United States v. Bogas, 920 F.2d 363 (6th Cir.).  Counsel in first appellate case challenging application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for environmental crimes.
  • New Mexico, et al. v. Watkins, et al., 969 F.2d 1122 (D.C. Cir.).  Challenge to National Environmental Policy Act Secretary’s modification and extension of land withdrawal to permit a test using radioactive waste.
  • Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 945 F.2d 295 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to environmental assessment prepared by the Department of Energy regarding continued receipt and storage of spent fuel from the demonstration reactor under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. NRC, 970 F.2d 421 (8th Cir.).  Challenges to Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations of a low-level radioactive waste facility.
  • Olympic Park Associates v. FERC, Nos. 91-70351, 91-70357, 91-70359 (9th Cir.).  Application of the National Environmental Policy Act to relicensing proceedings.
  • Northern States Power Co. v. The Prairie Island Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community, 991 F.2d 458 (8th Cir.).  Whether the doctrine of tribal immunity bars a suit seeking to enjoin a tribal ordinance regulating the shipment of radioactive fuel as preempted by federal law.
  • Public Citizen v. Bush, 970 F.2d 916 (D.C. Cir.).  Challenge to negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Municipality of Anchorage v. United States, 980 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to memorandum of agreement between the EPA and the Department of the Army under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Griffin v. Yuetter, et al., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21795 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to Cleveland National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Lane County Audubon Society v. Cy Jamison, 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s Guidelines for Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • McMillan Park Committee v. National Capital Planning Commission, 968 F.2d 1283 (D.C. Cir.).  Challenge to National Capital Planning Commission determination, specifying that an amendment enacted by the District of Columbia relating to McMillan Park violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • Norfolk v. U.S. EPA, 960 F.2d 143 (1st Cir.).  Whether the EPA’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) adequately considered the potential impact of a proposed landfill on existing and potential water supplies; whether the SEIS adequately considered the economic cost of the landfill and alternatives to it; and whether the SEIS adequately considered the alternative criteria of “equitable distribution of regional responsibility.”
  • Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. Lujan, 961 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.).  Challenge to three environmental impact statements prepared by the National Park Service relating to mining operations in three Alaska national parks.
  • Waterford Citizens’ Association v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287 (4th Cir.).  Whether the EPA’s Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • In Re Vasquez, Guererro and Compton v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 788 F.2d 130 (3rd Cir.).  Represented Commonwealth in matter relating to relationship between Bankruptcy Act and obligation to repay benefits under public welfare statutes.
  • Peak v. Department of Labor and Industry, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa.).  Represented Commonwealth in matter relating to authority of Board of Review to reverse findings of fact made by a hearing officer based upon a differing assessment of the credibility of witnesses.
  • Leber v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 780 F.2d 372 (3rd Cir.).  Represented Commonwealth in matter relating to the status of a state as an “operator” within the meaning of Section 703 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 1293 (1982).