Environmental Litigation

Select

Overview Areas of Focus Related Practices Key Contacts Experience News + Insights

Overview

Regardless of the specific product or pollutant at issue, MG+M’s litigators employ our talent, vision, teamwork and fierce advocacy to achieve optimal results in the most cost-effective manner. MG+M attorneys are experienced in the efficient and effective defense of environmental litigation, including claims related to property damage, bodily injury, regulatory interpretation and compliance in both established and emerging areas of concern, such as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). In addition, our attorneys prosecute, defend and mediate environmental claims under the federal Superfund law and its Massachusetts counterpart, (Chapter 21E), the Clean Air Act, the Wetlands Protection Act, and several other environmental statutes and regulations.

A broad network of resources
Environmental matters can have significant financial ramifications for a business. MG+M’s firm-wide emphasis on teamwork allows us to create multi-office teams of litigators with the particular skills needed to specifically address each environmental claim as effectively and efficiently as possible. Our attorneys constantly consult with our teams of experts and investigators to fully grasp the scope of environmental issues and work collaboratively to determine the most favorable approach for resolving litigation for each of our clients.

Substantive experience drives success
Even the simplest environmental problems require knowledge from many different disciplines. MG+M combines extensive trial experience with broad substantive experience in the constantly-changing arenas of federal, state, and local environmental law and regulation, in addition to the technical areas required to analyze and resolve environmental claims. Our lawyers have hands-on experience in environmental litigation ranging from pre-litigation legal and technical consultation through trials and appeals.

Related Practices

Asbestos Litigation Construction Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Toxic Tort Liability

Key Contacts VIEW TEAM

Brian D. Gross

Partner

bgross@mgmlaw.com 617 670 8519 Boston Providence

Katharine S. Perry

Partner

kperry@mgmlaw.com 617 670 8433 Boston

Max Swetman

Partner

mswetman@mgmlaw.com 504 799 0502 New Orleans

Experience

Obtained a multimillion-dollar recovery for a utility company in a suit to recover response costs from a chemical manufacturer that had caused significant environmental contamination at the sites of several former manufactured-gas plants owned by the utility.
Resolved more than 70 environmental cleanup and indemnification claims on behalf of the purchaser of $4.4 billion in chemical plants located in 53 facilities worldwide. Served as trial counsel in the Southern District of New York for component of case concerning Clean Air Act claims that involved over $500 million in potential damages.
Obtained $1.2 million arbitration judgment for a utility company in a dispute with a national university over the proper interpretation of a gas purchase agreement.
Represented one of the nation’s largest retail developers in negotiations with the City of Boston to transfer the lease for Faneuil Hall Marketplace to a new developer.
Successfully argued for our client, a manufacturer of a septic system additive, that their product did not harm the environment. A state department of environmental protection banned the sale of the product, in spite of its approval of it 11 years earlier. Instead of relying solely on our discovery of the department’s basis for its decision and the literature search we conducted, MG+M attorneys proactively commissioned a study on the environmental effects of the product when used as intended. The study confirmed that the product does not harm the environment when used as intended, and does not affect septic system function. The Court held that the department’s decision to ban the product was arbitrary and capricious and not based on substantial evidence that the product harmed the environment. The department then agreed to allow the sale of the product in the state.