Foley Hoag has perhaps the largest environmental litigation and dispute resolution practice in New England. And, through service to our clients, we have attained a national reputation in environmental matters. Our lawyers have built an impressive record resolving environmental disputes at the negotiating table and in the courtroom, and a number of our cases have produced precedents of national importance. learn more

News more

  • Summer @ Foley Hoag LLPFoley Hoag Launches New Microsite for Law Students as 2009 On-campus Interviews Commence  [Read More]
  • Working Mother and Flex-Time Lawyers Recognize Foley Hoag  [Read More]
  • Foley Hoag Joins American Lawyer's Select Group of Top 50 A-List Firms  [Read More]
  • Chambers USA 2008 Ranks Foley Hoag in Leading Practice Areas  [Read More]

Publications more

  • First Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Auction Results: Massachusetts Gets $13.3 Million [Read More]
  • Deadlines Looming for Comments on REC Imports, RPS, and APS  [Read More]
  • New Massachusetts Law Requires Significant Economy-Wide Greenhouse Gas Reductions [Read More]
  • EPA Changes to Audit Procedure Provide Meaningful Incentives for Self-Disclosure By New Owners [Read More]
  • New Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Create Business Opportunities [Read More]

Client Successes more

  • Providing Counsel to a Chemical Manufacturing Giant
    Our lawyers defended a major chemical manufacturer in an action involving contamination at a 150- year-old waterfront facility against claims for property damage and cleanup cost recovery. We obtained a complete dismissal of the property damage claim, and, after a trial, obtained a favorable judgment on the allocation of future cleanup costs. [Read More]
  • Setting a Precedent with Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
    We served as Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.’s lead trial and lead appellate counsel in a precedent-setting case arising from the alleged environmental liability of a policyholder from wood treating operations of a former affiliate. Our lawyers won a $6 million judgment after trial, which was affirmed on appeal, in a frequently cited opinion holding that the policyholder was entitled to recover “all sums” under each triggered policy, rather than mere pro-rated amount. [Read More]