Contemplating the most recent environmental catastrophe in
West Virginia (see, e.g., Ann Moore, West Virginia chemical spill triggers tap water ban, Reuters, Jan.
10, 2014), I can’t help but think how this misfortune is going to cause a spike
in work for some of those working in the legal environmental field. Selling
environmental services surely will become just a little bit easier in West
Virginia and elsewhere, and an environmental lawyer would wisely be reminding
clients that now might be a good time to do a bit of proactive
self-examination. As much as we might
not want to be, we are a reactive society, and a “don’t let what happened to
them happen to you” warning would be one well-heeded.
Even so, I can’t help but feel guilt about making money when
others have been so directly harmed. Is a spike in work stemming from an
environmental calamity wrong? Should it be?
I first started contemplating this notion (or, rather,
feeling guilty) early in my career when I was working on Superfund issues and
frequently heard the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act described as a ‘lawyers’ relief act.’ Lots of firms had a very
healthy Superfund business going on in the ’80s as companies bickered about
cleaning up previously contaminated sites.
Many have criticized the impact of the law on the economy, but I can’t
help but notice how much of the environment was cleaned up even as lawyers and
others earned a living dickering over the details.
I was more conflicted then than I am now. There are many
actors in the environmental field. We each have our roles. Some can afford to
work pro bono a lot. Some cannot. Some clients are far more easily persuaded to
take more environmentally responsible actions after a catastrophe has occurred.
Some lawyers, and government types, and judges hold those responsible for environmental
disasters accountable. Some people will be harmed and not sufficiently
compensated. But some clients who might not have taken action otherwise may
take preventive measures now that will decrease the chance of an environmental disaster
in the future. That’s really what so many of are working for.
Environmental disasters in all likelihood will always happen.
We need to learn from them and decrease the odds that similar disasters will
occur in the future. There’s nothing wrong with working toward that goal. What’s
unfortunate is that clients might be more inspired to take action when some
major misfortune has recently taken place.
—Lori Tripoli
No comments:
Post a Comment