Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | customerservice@law360.com
Q&A With Lane Powell's Michael Nesteroff
Law360, New York (March 29, 2013, 1:12 PM ET) -- Michael A. Nesteroff is a shareholder in Lane Powell
PC's Seattle office. He chairs the firm's sustainability and climate change team and is a member of the
firm’s environmental practice group. In his nearly 25 years at Lane Powell, Nesteroff has handled
numerous environmental litigation and claims involving hazardous site investigations, cleanups and cost
recovery involving sites in Washington, Oregon and Alaska. In addition to his active environmental law
emphasis, his practice also encompasses real estate litigation and general commercial disputes.
Q: What is the most challenging case you have worked on and what made it challenging?
A: We represented several hazardous liquids pipeline operators and were lead counsel for a group of
natural gas and liquids pipeline operators in a lawsuit seeking to protect highly sensitive location and
component data from being disclosed in response to a public records request under our state’s Freedom
of Information Act-equivalent. The case was challenging because the public records case law favors
broad disclosure. We were relying on an untested exemption for sensitive security information and we
had limited time to seek court intervention to protect the data. After the trial court denied our request
for injunctive relief, we sought and obtained an emergency stay from the intermediate court of appeals.
Subsequently, we received a 3-0 published decision supporting the security exemption as a basis for not
disclosing the data.
Q: What aspects of your practice area are in need of reform and why?
A: Environmental law covers so many interrelated areas and topics that changes in one statutory or
regulatory provision can have unexpected and unintended effects on other provisions. Consequently,
rather than piecemeal approaches that address the issue of the moment in a particular provision, it’s
important to take into account how changes in one provision can have an effect on the entire legal
ecosystem. We see some effort to address this on the permitting side, where coordinated reviews of
multiple coverage areas seek to reduce duplication and contradiction. But more integration is needed so
that the applicable scope and standards under the various statutes and regulations ensure consistency
and predictability, while fulfilling their intended purpose of protecting the public health and
environment.
Q: What is an important issue or case relevant to your practice area and why?
A: The sheer number, variety and complexity of environmental regulations that affect all aspects of our
clients’ businesses have become significant factors. They pose so many traps that even well-meaning
companies can find themselves running afoul of a regulation that results in consequences that can be
significantly greater than the actual harm posed. In addition, regulations involving climate change issues
— from air emissions to energy usage reporting to land use — are becoming more extensive and add an
even greater level of complexity for compliance.
Q: Outside your own firm, name an attorney in your field who has impressed you and explain
why.
A: Kevin Ewing of Bracewell & Guiliani’s Washington, D.C. office has incredible substantive depth and
breadth, as well as the ability to engage in high-level strategic and nuts and bolts thinking about the
practice of law and delivery of services to clients. At times I may disagree with him philosophically, but
he has a formidable mind and the ability to articulate a position that is well thought out. In addition, he
is a genuinely nice, engaging person on subjects outside the practice of law.
Q: What is a mistake you made early in your career and what did you learn from it?
A: Very early in my career I disclosed documents to an opposing party without ensuring that information
regarding nonparty customers had been redacted. Calls started coming in to the client from their
distressed customers who were contacted by opposing counsel. The client was understandably upset
with us and I felt like that would be the end of my short legal career. Fortunately, it was not and it has
remained a lesson learned in taking the extra time for double- and triple-checking. Now, in an era of
electronic discovery, this lesson has become even more critical.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its
clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general
information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
All Content © 2003-2013, Portfolio Media, Inc.