Attorney Profile

Lawrence S. Bazel

Lawrence Bazel

Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP
155 Sansome Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Contact Contact Lawrence S. Bazel
T: 415-402-2711
F: 415-398-5630

Visit: www.briscoelaw.net
Practice areas: Environmental Litigation (50%), Environmental (50%)

Profile

Larry Bazel practices in the areas of environmental litigation and administrative proceedings, including matters related to water quality and wastewater discharges, contaminated soil and groundwater, CEQA, water rights, toxic torts, and Proposition 65. He has represented cities, industries, and public-interest groups, and has lectured on TMDLs, stormwater, and other Clean Water Act issues. Before practicing law, he spent eight years as a hydrologist specializing in water pollution control, and as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and municipal governments.

Selected to:

Northern California Super Lawyers 2009
Northern California Super Lawyers 2008
Northern California Super Lawyers 2007
Northern California Super Lawyers 2006
Northern California Super Lawyers 2005
Northern California Super Lawyers 2004

About Lawrence Bazel

Admitted: 1984, California

Professional Webpage: www.briscoelaw.net/lawyers_bazel.html

Bar/Professional Activity: ADMISSIONS: State Bars of California, Nevada, and District of Columbia; United States Supreme Court; United States Courts of Appeals, Ninth and D.C. Circuits; United States District Courts, Northern and Eastern Districts of California, and District of Nevada.
Scholarly Lectures and Writings: Frequent lecturer on stormwater, TMDLs, enforcement, and other Clean Water Act issues; invited to testify about water pollution control before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Investigations and Review (1978); The Clean Water Act at Thirty: A Failure After All These Years? 18 Natural Resources & Environment 46 (2003); Water-Quality Standards, Maximum Loads, and the Clean Water Act: The Need For Judicial Enforcement, 34 Hastings Law Journal 1245 (1983).
Representative Clients: WATER QUALITY AND CLEAN WATER ACT - City of Las Vegas: Assists City of Las Vegas and other Southern Nevada municipalities on environmental issues relating to water quality and wastewater discharges, including TMDLs, mathematical modeling, and NPDES permits. United States v. City of Eureka: Represented ten property owners in defense of claims that the property owners placed fill on tidal flats without a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Creatively resolved without penalties. BayKeeper v. Tosco: Represented discharger in citizen suit brought to regulate stormwater discharges and air emissions alleged to be point-source discharges. Obtained dismissal on the ground of mootness. After reversal in the Ninth Circuit, settled to client’s satisfaction. CEQA - Concerned Citizens v. City of Stockton: Defending City of Stockton against claims that hiring company to operate city facilities violated CEQA. Prevailed on interlocutory appeal. WATER RIGHTS - Putah Creek Council v. Solano County Water Agency: Represented Putah Creek Council in suit brought to enforce the public trust doctrine and Fish & Game Code section 5937, which requires dam owners to release water to keep fish below the dam in good condition. Prevailed at trial; favorably settled on appeal. PROPOSITION 65 - People v. Ace Hardware: Represented 40 of 95 defendants in defense of claims that the use of power tools on bricks and other masonry products exposes people to crystalline silica and other carcinogenic substances. Resolved to satisfaction of all clients. SOIL AND GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION - Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation v. HM Holdings: Represented property owner in private cost-recovery action against former owners for contaminating property with zinc, other metals, and acids. Creatively resolved to client’s satisfaction. Wiegmann & Rose v. NL Industries: Represented former property owner in private cost-recovery action against previous owners for contaminating property with lead, toluene, and other solvents. Prevailed on liability issues, and then settled to client's satisfaction. E/M Corporation: Represented North Hollywood solvent-using facility in negotiations with Environmental Protection Agency about responsibility for groundwater contamination with TCE and PCE. EPA decided not to sue. Moore v. Dole Food Company: Represented former owner of real property in defense of claims that it fraudulently failed to disclose presence of underground tank. Negotiated satisfactory settlement with plaintiff and insurers. Hewlett Packard v. Aydin: Represented former tenant in defense of claims that it breached its lease by contaminating the property with PCBs and solvents. Resolved to client's satisfaction. E/M Corporation: Represented Mountain View solvent-using facility in negotiations with its neighbor about responsibility for soil contamination along the boundary, and for groundwater contamination downgradient. Negotiated satisfactory cleanup program with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and settlement agreement with neighbor. HAZARDOUS WASTE - People v. SPS Technologies, LLC.: Represented industry sued for allegedly storing and treating cyanide waste in violation of hazardous-waste requirements. Settled to client’s satisfaction. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT - Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Represented association of water and wastewater agencies in suit over arsenic MCL. Settled to client’s satisfaction. TOXIC TORTS - DeAnnethe v. National Refractories: Successfully defended manufacturer against claims that airborne metals caused cancer in neighboring resident. Mullen v. Armstrong World Industries. Successfully defended manufacturer of asbestos-containing products against class action by persons owning homes where asbestos-containing products were present. Action dismissed by trial court; affirmed on appeal.
Educational Background: J.D. cum laude, Hastings College of the Law, University of California, 1984; Editor, Hastings Law Journal.

Map Location

What is Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers Magazine

Super Lawyers magazine names attorneys in each state who received the highest point totals, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. Rising Stars names the state's top up-and-coming attorneys.

Super Lawyers magazine is published in all 50 states and reaches more than 13 million readers.

Read more…

Testimonials

"My Platinum profile ad has definitely paid off! My law firm is a boutique five-attorney law firm in San Francisco that had never advertised prior to this, except in Martindale-Hubbel. We have been a traditional insurance defense firm, and wanted to subtly let people know that we also do select plaintiff's cases. In the last quarter of 2006, we were retained in three significant plaintiff's cases, two of which are high-profile media cases. I also placed an ad in the Super Lawyers section of San Francisco magazine, to reach non- lawyers. Now, people at the gym, the coffee shop, the drycleaners tell me they had no idea what I do, and they will come to me when they need a lawyer. So, the ad also worked to reach non-lawyers in the community as well."
Debra Bogaards
Pave & Bogaards
San Francisco

“We are honored to be included, and delighted with the reaction (to our advertising) we have received from our colleagues and clients.”
Andrew R. Gillin
Gillin, Jacobson, Ellis and Larsen
Orinda, CA

Read more ...