Source: http://www.ordwaylawfirm.com/news/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:31:21+00:00

Document:
With a practice (one of many) focused on coastal law, and with clients near both NYC and Chicago, the firm has opened offices in both cities to assure easy access for clients in both regions of the country.
Over the years, cases have taken me to other parts of the country, as well, and I remain open to and interested in working with clients and colleagues around the country.
These days, many matters can proceed, sometimes for months or years, without attorney and client ever sitting down face to face. The benefits of technology make communication easy and fast.
On the other hand, I can remember when working with groups of clients in the 1990s that we discussed whether it was safe/secure to use email to send documents. With the problems in the media these days, you have to wonder whether use of email and of cloud storage devices is a secure way to do business. I am interested in what you think.
It has been five years since the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009). At the time, many thought the decision instructed trial courts to apportion Superfund liability more liberally. Five years later, it seems likely that this reading of the case was wrong. Trial court judges, at least, have not found Burlington Northern to significantly alter CERCLA apportionment jurisprudence. A recent review of the case law concluded that between 2009 and 2014, "[o]nly two out of more than twenty cases citing to the apportionment holding in Burlington Northern divided harm pursuant to § 107. [ … T]he two courts that have apportioned harm have done so without acknowledging a change in law." Wetmore, Joint and Several Liability after Burlington Northern: Alive and Well, 32 Va Envtl. L. J. 27, 41-42 (2014). While many in 2009 saw the Ninth Circuit's decision Burlington Northern as a swan song for CERCLA's joint and several liability, the effects of the Supreme Court's reversal have in hindsight appeared much more muted.
Why were so many commentators mistaken about Burlington Northern? It is true that the Supreme Court accepted the trial court's rough apportionment, complete with its fifty percent "uncertainty factor." At the same time, though, the Court was careful to signal its approval of the "seminal opinion of the subject of apportionment in CERCLA actions," United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp. 802 (1983), and Chem-Dyne's reliance on the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Burlington Northern, supra 613), not the "more apportionment-friendly" Restatement (Third) of Torts. Wetmore, supra 39. It is also worth noting that no part of Burlington Northern was an explicit change in CERCLA apportionment jurisprudence or a rejection of prior case law. The Supreme Court did reverse the Ninth Circuit, but it did so simply by applying well-established precedent.
Commentators also failed to note the significance of the procedural posture of the case. Burlington Northern did not involve any dispute about the principles that govern apportionment. Burlington Northern, supra 615. The Supreme Court was simply tasked with determining whether the record supported the judgment below: "The question [before the court] is whether the record provided a reasonable basis for the District Court's [apportionment]." Ibid. Here, deference was owed to the district court, particularly given the factual complexity of the litigation. Judy, Coming Full CERCLA, 44 New Eng. L. R. 249, 290 (2010).
Finally, the Ninth Circuit's analysis notwithstanding, the Burlington Northern Superfund site was much less complex than it could have been. It was small, contaminants were segregated and traceable to individual actors, and the potentially responsible parties' activities were for the most part relegated to several discrete leaseholds on the property. Wetmore, supra 45; Burlington Northern, supra 617.
For better or worse, Burlington Northern is probably not the landmark apportionment decision some made it out to be. So, for many joint tortfeasors, the practical effects of Burlington Northern are likely to be limited, and joint and several liability remains the norm. To potentially liable parties, this will obviously be disappointing, but in many situations a § 113 counterclaim remains an adequate alternative to apportionment, since § 113 permits the court to allocate costs among liable parties using equitable factors. Wetmore, supra 50; 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). In fact, § 113 equitable allocation occurs in most § 107 cases brought by private parties. Ibid. So a sound litigation strategy rarely focuses on apportionment alone. (This "'scorched earth,' all-or-nothing approach to liability" was rebuked by the Burlington Northern trial court. Burlington Northern, supra 615.) Instead, the target of a § 107 suit should also consider whether the situation warrants a § 113 counterclaim or crossclaim.
After a year serving as chair of the Environmental Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, I have passed the gavel to the new chair at the end of September, and will now serve in an advisory capacity as immediate past chair. My firm entered its fifth year in August. USNews named the firm one of the best environmental law firms. The Martindale-Hubbell rating of AV-Preeminent continues. The Best Lawyers and Superlawyers recognitions continue year to year for my work in environmental law and mediation.
I see other firms publicizing these recognitions in press releases and ads. But I remain convinced that the review that matters the most is what my clients think of my work. The primary reason I am busy is clients who keep me involved over the years, who send new work my way and refer me to their colleagues. Similarly, colleagues with other firms, not only in Michigan but in other jurisdictions, who refer their clients to me when they have conflicts, who get me involved as local counsel, or who refer their environmental work to me when they do not have that expertise are not only key resources but are to me the best measure of my success.
Work has been steady and varied, as usual. Litigation continues over Great Lakes shoreline rights, development of critical sand dunes, and other riparian rights disputes. MDEQ enforcement over alleged permit violations continues to present challenges. US EPA remains engaged in cooperative work on Great Lakes Legacy Act sites. RCRA corrective action challenges persist. Settlement of underground storage tank litigation was finally resolved with complete payment. And the challenge of sorting out the environmental due diligence issues in real estate transactions continues, despite continued modification of Part 201.
The practice of environmental law for corporations often arises out of issues of fairness. In my experience, companies have a product or service focus that is consistent with sound environmental management. But the rules of environmental compliance are not their primary focus, there can be challenges incorporating practices into the corporate scheme. Most often, however, the nature of the legal work is responding to regulatory actions that create substantial exposure or threaten unfair results. Look back at major environmental litigation rulings. By and large, they tend to focus on sorting out what is fair – how does the (often new and perhaps confusing) law work; what has been done that is compliant and/or non-compliant or violative of the law and regulations; and how should responsibility be assigned, shared, shouldered?
Environmental law is complex because it involves science as well as policy, it is evolving, it is expensive, and it is important. It makes for a great area of practice.

References: v. 
 § 107
 v. 
 § 113
 § 113
 § 9613
 § 113
 § 107
 § 107
 § 113