Success Stories

From a young age, Basil Seggos ’01 was always interested in the outdoors and with nature itself. As he went through high school, and college, he gained a greater appreciation of the amount of injustice in the world and was motivated to be a part of the effort to try to help resolve some of these issues, specifically environmental issues being faced by people and by the planet. Law school proved to be the perfect fit for him, and he was able to merge his passion for the environment with his sense of and desire for justice. Appointed in 2015, Basil Seggos ’01 is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner. Today, he leads an agency of over 3,000 professionals and is the longest serving DEC Commissioner.

You have accomplished so much as DEC Commissioner, what are you most proud of?

I am most proud of the passage of the state’s climate law and the work we have done to begin its implementation. That would be number one. Number two is rebuilding the agency and reinjecting a sense of purpose through a bolder agency budget, increased staff, and a modernized mission for the challenges over the horizon. DEC was heavily impacted by the economic downturn of the late 2000s. It took the better part of eight years to rebuild the agency to where it is now. Number three is securing billions of dollars for water quality infrastructure across the state. Starting with almost no grant money for infrastructure when I first took this job, we now have a nearly $5 billion grant fund, and the largest revolving loan program in the country. Number four is bringing a sense of environmental justice into the everyday work we do as an agency. This includes helping to guide the agency in a positive way and ensuring we are making decisions and investments with the goal of righting the wrongs of the past. Finally, the last thing would be keeping New York at the lead of important environmental issues, whether it is climate, water, emerging contaminants, or environmental justice. We have set the tone nationally for many important initiatives. And, while we haven’t solved all the state’s legacy issues, we are on the right track.

You were instrumental in the passage of the state’s nation-leading climate change law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act – how did you achieve that tremendous milestone?

We are confronting an existential crisis, so the questions are: what do we do about it? What actions can we take to address the crisis and reduce burdens on front line communities while keeping the state economically competitive? Those questions served as the foundation for the law, and it will likely be one of the most challenging undertakings in state history. We’re now in the implementation phase, and while we develop new policies and investment programs, we’re also doubling down on communicating with New Yorkers. Change of any kind is difficult and change on this scale and in this polarized environment can be frightening if we don’t emphasize constant communication and stakeholder engagement. It was important for us to lay the groundwork in a collaborative way and ensure that the various stakeholder groups had a voice. We worked with environmental justice groups, industries, unions, businesses, and local government officials to create a groundswell of stakeholders who would help craft and implement solution. Goals and targets are critical, but ultimately, the process needs to be collaborative and empowering.

How did you ultimately choose the law as a career and specifically Haub Law?

I was working at the NRDC after college, specifically with the urban environmental team and I got to know a bit about Haub Law. There were some Haub Law professors who were active with the NRDC and they encouraged me to think about law school. It was the perfect opportunity to create a career centered on justice and the environment. I’m so glad that I chose Haub Law.

Which professors at Haub Law had the biggest impact on you?

I distinctly remember Karl Coplan, he was the toughest and most outstanding professor I ever had. Karl managed the Environmental Litigation Clinic at the time, and no one had a better handle of the science, facts, and the law—if you were in his clinic, you better come prepared. He very effectively put students into challenging situations and helped us learn how to become attorneys. And then of course there was Nick Robinson, an absolute legend. He was my first environmental law professor. He had a global view of the law and understanding of how to use environmental law and policy to improve lives. Ann Powers was another terrific professor. All three of them took great care and interest in their students.

What were some of your most impactful experiences during your time at Haub Law?

My time in the environmental litigation clinic was certainly formative and challenging. We students were quickly immersed in real-life cases. During my first two weeks in the clinic, I was handed a case that was headed towards an appeal in federal court. It forced me to evolve from being a mere student into a young practitioner with real clients, briefs and appearances in court. Professor Karl Coplan quickly prepared me for that opportunity. That was the first time that I really felt the ability of a person to impact change in a meaningful way in a court of law.

What are your thoughts on New York’s recently passed Green Amendment?

One of the things I take away from it is the fact that New Yorkers value the environment—they went the polls and said yes, the protection of the environment should be enshrined in the state’s constitution. As someone who works on the environment every day in New York, I take pride in knowing that New Yorkers value these issues. Now, the courts will ultimately decide what the green amendment means. There are several cases working their way through the courts to determine the implications of the amendment.

You have an active presence on social media – how do you feel that social media helps to push forward movements for change?

Social media has been an important tool to advance environmental progress. From spreading awareness of issues to galvanizing movements, we’re fortunate to have these tools to help knit us together as a society. In the same breath, social media can also be divisive, and it is often rife with misinformation, and often much worse. There has to be a balance. Use social media as one of the ways to rapidly and widely communicate with the public, but don’t let it supplant the obligation to get out of one’s seat, hit the ground, and be present to speak to people face to face—and listen to what they have to say.

What do you feel is the biggest misconception about climate change law?

The biggest misconception about climate change law is that action is incompatible with progress. That it is hostile to jobs. And the economy. I believe it is the exact opposite. A state or nation that safeguards its environment ultimately protects its economy. All of our climate initiatives are part of a larger theme of progress for New York State.

How did you build equity into the climate law?

Equity and justice are at the heart of the climate law. The law requires us to hit our statewide emissions reduction targets, but it also requires us to ensure we are investing at least 35% of our environmental investments- with a higher goal of 40%- in our frontline communities. We have extended that beyond climate law to our water funding and the recently passed $4.2 billion Bond Act. The status quo of inequity is unacceptable, and it may take years to unpack this and do better for all New Yorkers. It means putting a greater emphasis on equity, now, focusing our work where the conditions have been the worst so we can reverse fortunes and improve health and people’s lives. That is the greatest takeaway of the climate act – the trajectory it has put us on. We now have an ability to truly improve lives of millions of New Yorkers, especially those who have been historically marginalized.

In the fall of 2022, you took a leave of absence to go to Ukraine to aid in humanitarian efforts as as the Russian invasion was escalating. You recently went back on another humanitarian mission. What were those experiences like?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, I felt compelled to act. For me it wasn’t enough to speak out on the outrage of the invasion of a democratic ally. I couldn’t just sit on the sideline. I had the ability to go the extra step to provide just a little bit of help where it was needed. Fortunately, I was lucky enough to link up with some veteran and humanitarian groups who were bringing aid into the country, so I went over in the fall and became an ambulance driver for 2 weeks, all the way to the front. And I just returned from another two weeks behind the wheel of an ambulance. Our group also built playgrounds, repaired a roof on a recently bombed community center and provisioned some orphanages. I don’t believe any of us slept during those missions, it was intense. I saw the worst and best of humanity at the same time. We worked in villages that were completely shattered, apartment blocks with massive holes in them, craters in farm fields, people fleeing the invasion, babies left without parents, and yet the Ukrainians were so strong and optimistic for their future. Seeing the resilient Ukrainians and their appreciation for the global outpouring of support for their cause was inspiring. All of us can and should help in our own way, whether on the ground in Ukraine or from the states. And there is so much demand for legal assistance, whether in documenting war crimes or helping displaced persons piece their lives back together. Lawyers and law students can always play an important role to help stabilize the impacts of conflict. Getting involved in the cause of Ukraine has been life changing.

Many of our students participate in summer internships with the DEC and over the years, the DEC has employed many Haub Law graduates – what makes our students stand out?

Haub Law students are always the best prepared lawyers when they come into this agency. Because they have gone to Haub Law they are also driven by a sense of commitment to the environment. And they come in with that energy, passion, and knowledge and quite often they have gone through one of the clinics and with practical experience. If I have a choice between a Haub Law student and comparable student from a different school, my instinct is to go with the Haub Law student because I know that person will excel. Right now, in my office, we have at least 19 Haub Law graduates in our counsel’s office and in other leadership positions in the agency. A Haub Law graduate is also serving as Assistant Counsel to the Governor for the environment portfolio.

What advice would you give to a student who wants to pursue a career in environmental law?

It is the most exciting time ever to get into a career in the environment given the scale of regulation and investment in climate action, environmental justice, and environmental infrastructure. Whether you are going in to work at a firm, a company, non-legal work, or in policy, it is an extraordinarily busy field. We need the best minds on this given the scale of the challenge.

Your wife, Rose, is a 2004 graduate of Haub Law – did you meet in law school, and does she share your same passion for the outdoors and environment?

Rose and I met because of our shared passion for the environment. We had the chance to work together on a case when she was a student in Haub Law’s Environmental Litigation Clinic and I was with Riverkeeper, so it is fair to say that we owe our relationship to the negligence of a polluter (whom we brought to justice). We both love the outdoors and do our best to adventure with our family in some wild and beautiful places. She’s just as dedicated as I am to ensuring that we can bequeath to our kids a clean and healthy planet.

What are some of your hobbies outside of your profession?

Dad time. I spend most of my free time with my kids coaching their lacrosse teams, supporting their sport or art interests, and spending lots of time outside. Boating. Hiking. Fishing. Skiing. I spend my own time running, watching the Yankees, and restoring my old house. And I love reading-- nonfiction exclusively. Reality is more interesting than fiction, and history is always there to teach us about the present and the future.

After spending 30 years on the bench, Haub Law alumnus Justice Joseph Suarez has recently retired. Born in Cuba, Justice Suarez attended City College in New York while working as an electrical worker in NYC Transit to help support his family. After a tragedy hit home, he and his fiancée became guardians of three children. “I had a responsibility to my family and at that point, I knew I had to support them,” said Suarez. “I decided that obtaining my teaching license would be prudent and I started a career as a science teacher in the South Bronx.” During that time, Justice Suarez supplemented his teaching salary as a S.E.C. registered Investment Adviser and Tax preparer and continued his educational studies, ultimately receiving an MBA in finance from Baruch. With a passion for learning and a drive to go further, he ultimately pursued and obtained a MS in Educational Administration and a NYS license as a District Administrator.   

“By the time I had started thinking about law school, I had moved my family to Rockland County,” Suarez recalled. “I was interested in law, I truly enjoyed being a student, and there was a competitive value of a law degree that was appealing.” Ultimately, he was accepted to a number of law schools, but once he heard that Pace was to open a law school in White Plains, the choice was made. “It was the perfect circumstances for me. I would not have to commute far, and I could attend at night.”  

Once enrolled at what was then known as Pace Law School, Justice Suarez immersed himself in his legal studies. “Immediately I knew I was in the right place. And, fortunately, despite having a young family, I had the unwavering support of my wife, Della, without which none of this would have been possible.” During his time at Pace, Justice Suarez recalls the many professors who helped him along the way. “I was most impressed by Professor Jay Carlisle, Professor Bennett Gershman, and the late Ralph Stein. Their passion and skills for imparting knowledge on the particular subject matter was amazing.”  

After graduating from Pace in 1980, Justice Suarez remained very involved with the School, serving as a member of the alumni association for thirteen years, as president, treasurer, and on various committees of the association. “I developed strong friendships with classmates during my time at Pace. We all fostered a mutual sense of wanting to give back to Pace through our involvement, which included scholarships, outreach to minorities, and more.”

Once he was admitted to the bar, Justice Suarez accepted the position of District Director of Management Services in his South Bronx School District. When the position of labor negotiator for Rockland County became available, he applied and became the first Hispanic Assistant County Attorney in the process. During this time, he also helped found the Village of Chestnut Ridge, becoming the Village Attorney for the first 6 years of its operation and serving as the first Hispanic Village Attorney in the County. 

With a passion for involvement in community causes, Justice Suarez was deeply involved with the Haverstraw community, helping to form: the Hispanic Coalition of Rockland County, the Alliance of Latino Leaders; and HOGAR (Home), an organization which focused on establishing first-time home buyers. Ultimately, through HOGAR, Justice Suarez helped close for nearly 200 families, over the years.  “Giving back to the Hispanic community has always been a passion and priority of mine.”  

It was in 1992 when the Acting Village Justice of Chestnut Ridge moved away that the mayor asked him to assume the position of Acting Village Justice and he accepted- becoming the first Hispanic judge in the Hudson Valley. For the next nearly 5 years, Justice Suarez served in that capacity. With a need for a second justice, it was in 1997 that Justice Suarez was elected to fill that role and since then, he has been re-elected continuously. “Being on the bench was not something I foresaw all those years ago when I was pursuing different educational paths and degrees. My career and the path of my career has been circuitous and rewarding. The ability to effect change, and ensure justice is served, has been life changing. It was the honor of my lifetime to have served in that capacity.”  

Now that he is retired, Justice Suarez looks forward to taking the time to reflect on how he can efficiently effect positive change. “I am excited for the next chapter, connecting with friends, spending time with family, and a Havanese puppy we recently got, who takes up much of our time. I also look forward to continuing my work with the Hudson Valley Hispanic Bar Association.” 

Whether you walk into Professor Dorfman’s office or classroom, you will leave having learned more about the world and society then you even knew was possible. Professor David Dorfman has been a faculty member at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University for 28 years. When Professor Dorfman first started teaching at what was then known as Pace Law in 1995, he was teaching Criminal Law Research and Writing. Today, Professor Dorfman teaches Criminal Procedure and Investigation, First Year Criminal Law, and New York Criminal Procedure - a course he designed himself.  In the past he has also taught Lawyering and Professional Responsibility. In addition to his doctrinal teaching, Professor Dorfman has been running the Law School’s Criminal Defense Clinic since 2010. Learn more about Professor Dorfman’s background, legal journey, and more in this candid Q&A.
 

Q: What made you choose to go into a career in criminal law, specifically defense work?

A: This is a long story, but here we go. It is not like I always wanted to be a lawyer. I grew up in the city, specifically in a Mitchell-Lama Co-Op in Long Island City, Queens. In that section of Queens, there was a lot of street action and a number of the kids I hung around with got into legal problems. I was fortunate not to get into trouble and I attribute this to my parents. I was raised in a politically radical family, meaning they were always very politically involved. This dated back to the Great Depression. I was raised to think about poor people and people of color and the extent to which the criminal “justice” system and the “system” in general puts certain people in a real disadvantaged situation. I was raised to not trust the police or the system itself. Living in NYC, I witnessed firsthand some police brutality and how rough it was for those with a different skin color. I, myself, was the “right color” and did not experience the same treatment. Regardless, I always cared for the kids that I ran around with.

During my last year and a half of law school, I worked at a law office which worked white collar cases. Typically, the firm focused on crooked broker dealers on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. This was essentially representing rich crooks and helping them keep their ill-gotten money in their pockets. I realized I wanted to help people in need, not represent rich people and aid them in getting richer. Around this time, the Legal Aid Society of New York City was conducting interviews in Chicago and I decided after 9 years in Chicago it was time to come home. I had my second interview with Legal Aid when I came back to New York. I was interviewed by the head of the Legal Aid Criminal Defense Practice, Cesar Cirigliano, and I quickly realized this was not an average interview, this was a “get to know you” op. This was 1987, there was a huge spike in crime rates in New York City and there was a desperate need for lawyers. The Legal Aid Society had their largest hiring year when they hired me. I requested to work in Brooklyn as it was close to family and friends, and I was pretty familiar with the area.

I worked as a criminal defense lawyer for the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn for six plus years and enjoyed every minute of it. Criminal law practice back then meant constantly being in a courtroom and arguing, fighting, trying cases. I thrived on the hustle. To be completely honest, I still think of my Legal Aid job as the best job I ever had, it was just amazing. My last couple years at Legal Aid I was doing, along with the more senior trial lawyers, mostly major offense cases; this meant I took some of the hardest cases in the office many of which went to trial because plea bargains were terrible back then. In two consecutive years, I tried ten to twelve jury trials each year, so you do the math. This sort of pace was not uncommon back then for a senior trial lawyer. Each trial could take about two-three weeks so I did about 25 to 30 weeks of jury trials out of a 52 week year. Also add in the regular night arraignments, for which we would get compensatory time (not overtime).  My life and that of my colleagues was arraignments, constant court appearances, trials and a month and a half vacation (using up that compensatory and vacation time), rinse, repeat. It was easy to burn out and trust me, I came close, but I loved the work and being in court every day. Among other things, I came to believe plea bargaining was just negotiating the terms of surrender. I’m sure you can tell, I am very competitive and like many of my Legal Aid colleagues chose to fight the system and (hopefully) win the case instead of backing down and settling. I believe everybody deserves to have someone fight for them and I guess sometime along the way I decided I wanted to be that person. This was very much the ethic of that office.

That was a really long answer to your question, but long story-short, I chose criminal law because doing public defense work allowed me to represent the people I grew up with, it fit my personality and my politics, and I like the battle because I am very competitive.

Q: Did you ever consider working on the other side in prosecution?

A: After taking the LSATs and getting into Chicago Kent College of Law, I first wanted to be a poverty lawyer, I didn’t know what a poverty lawyer did – all I knew was I wanted to help folks. Eventually, I took trial advocacy and my professor was a prosecutor. I took to advocacy fairly naturally and the professor told me I should pursue trial work because I “have a big mouth.” As I continued through law school, it became very clear to me I wanted to be a defense attorney because becoming a prosecutor was very much adverse to how I was raised. Oddly enough, I went to the State’s Attorney’s Office of Cook County for a job interview. The Assistant State’s Attorney at the time asked what my attitude toward the death penalty was and I honestly said I would refuse to prosecute a capital case. At that point, the two of us knew the interview was over, but we continued to talk until our allotted time was over.

Q: How did your parents feel about you going into law?

A: My father was a writer; he wrote comic books and juvenile fiction. My mother was a school teacher and my brother and sister were both artists. My father died when I was 19, so he never got to see me become a lawyer. I think he would appreciate my work because when he was younger, he was a union organizer. I think he had the same kind of fight in him when he was young and he would have related to my career path.

My mom was ambivalent because no one in my family was a lawyer. I don’t think she or my siblings understood the appeal of verbally fighting all the time and being competitive because it was not who they were. As I mentioned before, my family was radical when it came to politics and they loved to argue those kinds of issues, but going to court and the idea of wearing a suit was just not them. Eventually, I think they all came to appreciate it.

Q: Is there a case or moment in your career that stands out to you?

A: Oh yes, there are a lot of them. One in particular that stands out was a case I had when I was doing major offenses. This was back in the early 1990s, my client Casey was charged with armed robbery. This was not Casey’s first charge, he had four priors all for armed robbery. Due to his priors, he was charged as a mandatory persistent felon and if convicted he would be facing 25 years to life in prison.

Casey was a great guy, I liked him a lot. He was sent to Riker’s Island for detention because he could not make bail—bail was many thousands of dollars. It took a while to get to trial back then so by the time we got in front of a jury, Casey had already spent close to two years in Riker’s. During the time that we awaited trial, I thoroughly investigated the case and was convinced Casey was innocent, that the prosecutor’s case was flawed, that the only reason Casey was charged and not afforded a deal was because of his record. I also learned Casey had changed his life – he worked at the transit authority and had a young family whom he was trying to support. Casey was a soft spoken guy, nice to talk to, an absolute sweetheart – you could not square his personality with his terrible record. I looked at Casey’s record a little more carefully and noticed he had copped a plea on every case, even those when he claimed he was innocent. He had always gotten a pretty good deal, but this time there was no decent deal to be had and he needed to go to trial. Despite turning his life around, Casey felt like a loser and was understandably scared of trial.

Regardless of how Casey felt, trial was really our only option. At the hearing to suppress the lineup, the district attorney brought in the victim of the robbery to testify, to prove independent source because the lineup was very flawed. This hearing gave me the chance to play out the entire cross examination without a jury, to see how good of a witness the victim was. It turns out, he had been drinking the night of the robbery and even though there was good lighting, the robber’s face was backlit meaning his face was somewhat obscured. Additionally, the victim admitted that during the 10 minutes the robbery took place that he had been staring at the gun because he was so scared, and not the robber’s face. This was all good information to hear prior to going to trial in front of a jury. After this, Casey finally started to gain some courage and confidence. The other thing we had in our back pocket, was an alibi. Casey was married with kids, but he was having an affair. His mistress was a girlfriend from a long time ago and she had been with him at the time of the robbery. When I interviewed her, she confirmed the alibi in detail. Typically, a mistress would not the best alibi, but she had no incentive to lie because she now hated Casey for leaving her for his wife. The mistress admitted part of her wanted him to be convicted and sent upstate.

I knew putting on an alibi was always a dangerous move, but I loved the ex-girlfriend as a witness so much, and I knew she was rock solid on the facts. Typically, a jury will view an alibi witness warily, and will effectively shift the burden of proof to the defense. The burden to prove an alibi is one of the hardest burdens to carry. So, after the People’s case and their one witness identification evidence, I put the ex-girlfriend on the stand and the DA walked straight into the trap. He asked if she was going to lie for the person she loved and her response was, “I wouldn’t lie for that scumbag after the way he treated me.” It was absolutely perfect and when all was said and done, we got an acquittal. At the time of the verdict, I said to the judge “I move to have my client released right now.” It was typically protocol back then to bring the prisoner back to Riker’s to collect his possessions while Corrections did one final search through the system to make sure there were no other holds on him. It could create hours of delay.  That day, the judge said he was not sending Casey back to Riker’s and instead told the Corrections officers to do their search for holds on the court computers. The computers were old at the time so this search took about an hour to an hour and a half. Needless to say, Casey had no other holds and was released from the courtroom. As we were going down the elevators in the old Schermerhorn Street courthouse, I turned to Casey and said “you haven’t eaten since lunch what do you want for dinner? What do you want to eat?” Casey said “I would love a really good hamburger.” We walked to a place called Grand Canyon Hamburgers and as we walked down the street in Brooklyn Heights, Casey was walking like a man on the moon and he was crying. Casey ordered a double hamburger with all the fixings. He was eating this burger like a man who hasn’t eaten in two years. He was slobbering and drooling. Quite frankly, it was embarrassing, but this is a guy who genuinely thought he was going to go back to Riker’s and then up to the Canadian border for the rest of his life.

This was very powerful. It reminded me of why I did this job. I don’t think I changed Casey’s life – the case lined up, the judge was fair, the alibi was amazing. I was just a part of something and it was really very meaningful for this guy who was a truly good person to finally find justice. Casey never needed my help again and we stayed in touch for a period of time, but at a certain point something about talking to me reminded Casey of all of the bad things and that part of his life that he wanted to close the door on, that long terrible chapter of his life. We haven’t connected since. Casey’s case was truly one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had.

Q: What made you want to become a professor and how did you start your career at Haub Law?

A: A friend of mine named Andy worked at NYU as a Lawyering professor and said I would be perfect for teaching. I applied to work at NYU for their Lawyering program – it was not a tenure track position, but it was a full-time contract professor position that capped out at three years. It was at NYU that I got the teaching bug. Anthony Amsterdam, the former Dean of Clinical Education at NYU, was my mentor and I learned how to teach from him. I stayed at NYU for 2 years. In 1995, I was hired and then started working at what was then called Pace Law on the tenure track. There was no separate Legal Skills course when I arrived. The school instead had a class that was comprised of Criminal law with a writing and research component incorporated into it. It was a perfect fit for me, and I taught this class for about 5-6 years exclusively. Eventually, the school realized I could teach other things. I started teaching Criminal Procedure and Investigation, the Lawyering/Simulations course with Professor Lissa Griffin, and Professional Responsibility. Around 2002, the woman who used to run the Criminal Defense Clinic, Adele Bernhard, took a year off and I took over the clinic in her absence. A year later when Adele came back, I still stayed somewhat connected with the clinic, consulted on some cases, sat in on some seminars.  In 2010, Adele left and I officially took over the clinic as Supervising Attorney. All of the cases are in the Bronx and I have been at the clinic along with my adjunct team teacher Robin Frankel since.

Q: You have been very involved in some of the more recent protestor cases, can you talk about that?

A: I was a somewhat active member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a leftist lawyer’s organization, and in 2016, I got a call from Joel Kupferman, a friend and colleague from NLG. He mentioned that there was a big protest happening by the Indian Point nuclear powerplant. There were environmental protestors protesting the installation of a high-capacity gas pipeline that linked fracking fields in Pennsylvania snaking through Jersey and New York and all the way up to New England. There was no real need for this pipeline since there was no gas shortage. In fact, the gas flowing through the pipeline was going to be liquified and sold commercially abroad. The whole process of extraction and transmission and the pipeline tech itself was incredibly dangerous. There were seven people that were planning to occupy the pipeline and I agreed to represent them. The protestors hopped a fence in Verplank, New York at 5:00 a.m. and four of them climbed into the partially installed pipeline. They were prepared with sleeping bags, backpacks, food, adult diapers, and water. They stayed in the pipeline for less than 24 hours (they left by midnight). They were all arrested as well as the three others that did not climb into the pipeline, but instead stood guard. I helped negotiate with the police to avoid their spending the night in jail.

I ended up representing those seven protestors for two years. We went to trial in Cortlandt Manor in Northern Westchester. They were charged with criminal trespass. None of them wanted to plead guilty and the DA would not make an acceptable deal. We wanted to mount a climate necessity defense; meaning that they were allowed to break the law if it was a necessity, to avoid a greater harm. Stopping this pipeline from being built was a necessity for three main reasons in our defense case: 1) this would help save the world from global climate change, of which methane gas is a main driver; 2) save the neighborhoods surrounding the pipeline compressor stations from leaked methane and carcinogens; and 3) save the whole eastern seaboard from the potential rupture of the pipeline, which would ignite the spent nuclear fuel rods at Indian Point, and make the whole east coast of the US uninhabitable. Think Fukushima. Think Chernobyl. Think Three Mile Island.

The trial took two weeks, it was the longest litigated climate necessity case in the US thus far, as well as one of the most complex cases I have ever litigated. The judge allowed me to try the case in the most complete way possible. I had expert testimony from a variety of Incredible professionals—a world renowned climate scientist, a public health expert, a nuclear engineer. Due to this case’s unprecedented nature, it gained a fair amount of press. Unfortunately, we did not get the protestors the acquittal we had hoped for.  But they were only convicted for non-criminal trespass; there was no sentence, no fine, no court costs imposed. Nothing.  The judge even said to them, “I do not want to deter your activism.”

Q: If you could create a new course tomorrow, what would it be?

A: I taught a seminar with Professor Michael Mushlin and the late Professor Gary Munneke. It was a legal history course centered on the history of civil rights lawyering. It focused mostly on the lawyers and law organizations that went to the South in 1964 during Freedom Summer. I believe civil rights lawyering of that era has been extraordinarily influential on our whole concept and practice of public interest lawyering and not talked about nearly enough. I would like to do seminars on legal history but find interesting areas that are not often studied in law school. Then I would bring in unconventional materials like historical readings, films, diaries. I would want it to be a two credit-hour seminar on the underappreciated and understudied areas of legal history. I would love to have students read, watch films, and talk about the cases and the type of lawyering that happened. I don’t want students to just focus on the cases in casebooks, their holdings, and then passing the bar. I want to teach students the fuller view of these important historical moments, the movement lawyering, and the personalities involved. Law does not operate in a vacuum and sometimes, I think that is forgotten. In that connection, I think it would also be interesting to do a seminar on the Vietnam War, the protest movement, the cases involving people like Dr. Benjamin Spock and the Berrigan Brothers and Dr. King.

Q: What is your favorite part of being a professor?

A: I like seeing students do well. I like my colleagues a lot and have good relationships with them, but the students are why I love my job. I am not an institutionalist, I love the school, but I love it for the students.  I enjoy watching them learn and flourish. It is a great feeling watching the lightbulbs go off.

I am very political and have strong views so I enjoy teaching in a way where I teach to those that may not agree with me. I don’t want to have to hide who I am or lose my soul. I like the challenge of being a good devil’s advocate. I think someone can come out of my class learning a lot and appreciating my viewpoint without having to agree with me. I always aim for the sweet spot of teaching – even though I know I am sometimes a tyrant in the classroom. The most gratifying part of teaching is being able to do it without a personality transplant. And watching the students succeed.

Q: If you weren’t a law professor, what would you be?

A: Back in the 1970s before going to Chicago, I wanted to be a writer/novelist. I would write essays, fiction, and poetry. I wrote a number of articles for Art Form Magazine with my brother. One day, the editor of Art Form, Joe, said I should apply for a grant because my brother and I had a book in us. I applied for the Art Critics Grant from the National Endowment for the Arts and received $4,500 to write a book. My brother and I completed the book, but unfortunately it never got published.

Recently, my brother wrote a different book and it was published. In his new book, my brother used some of our old material from the previous book. His new book is called, “Out of the Picture.”

So to answer your question, maybe I’d write fiction or essays on politics and culture.  Probably not law.

Q: What do you do in your free time?

A: I spend time with my wife hanging out, we love to cook together. My wife and I like to travel too, but with COVID we haven’t been able to travel as much as we would like. We visit our children and grandchildren when we have time.

I like to read fiction, I am always reading a novel. I feel it is really important to occupy the other part of my brain, the part that gets going when I read good fiction. I specifically like genre fiction –high quality spy novels, detective novels, etc. I should exercise more, but with my bad back I don’t. I do walk a decent amount with our beautiful old dog. Lastly, I like to play guitar. It sparks the same part of my brain that reading good genre fiction does. It is one of my connections to my artistic roots.

Q: If you had one phrase to live your life by, what would it be?

A: Mickey Rivers, a former centerfielder for the New York Yankees, used to say: “I don’t worry about things I can’t control because I cannot control them. I only worry about things that I can control because I can control them.” I try to live my life by this line. It is easy to get stressed out about things and I try not to fall into the trap.

Q: What is one piece of advice you would like to give to law students?

A: I try not to give too much advice and instead help to create situations that people are learning from by spending time with me and the materials. A political activist and incredible attorney, Ralph Nader, once said, “the problem with lawyers is that in order to get sharp, they get narrow.”

I like to get students to think about that line. Everyone wants to be good at what they do and in order to do that they become very analytical and focused. This is what being narrow is. I believe to be a good person and frankly to be a good lawyer, you need a broad view, to see other things and perspectives. It is important to preserve broadness by finding other things to care about. That is why I continue to travel, read novels, have friends who aren’t lawyers, still love art and music. I refuse to get narrow, and I still aspire to be a sharp lawyer and thinker. I think being too narrow makes it hard to live a good and full life and you need to remember that you will have a life apart from the law and after the law. 

Learn more about Professor Dorfman.

Chris Rizzo is a Partner with Carter Ledyard and Milburn LLP and Director of the Environmental Practice at the firm. From the moment he decided he wanted to attend law school, Chris knew that he was specifically going to focus on environmental law. From participating in the environmental litigation clinic, to environmental law review, and ultimately graduating with an environmental law certificate, Pace provided the environmental legal education he sought out.

When did you decide that you wanted to be a lawyer?

That was probably in my sophomore year of college. I was studying political science and biology. I had a biology professor, and I expressed to him my deep interest in biology, particularly environmental biology. And he said to me something like “no, no, no, no, Chris, do not become a scientist or biologist. You should become a lawyer, an environmental lawyer. Lawyers get everything done.” He didn't say this with kindness. He said it with resentment. But he was very clear with me that he thought I should go towards law school. I took it to heart, and I never looked back.

And from there, how did you choose Haub Law?

Well, I knew that I specifically was going to law school to focus on environmental law. So I sought out a law school where I could specifically focus on that area with the intention of practicing in that area.

I received a full academic scholarship to come to Haub Law, which was a huge motivation for me. I was very leery about taking on any student debt, and worried about what that would do to my professional flexibility in the future. I was admitted to a number of other law schools and while the full scholarship was a motivating factor, it was not the only one. At the time, a few other schools I looked at did not have the robust environmental law program that I was seeking and I thought they were not of any use to me. I wanted to be an environmental lawyer. Why would I go to a law school with two course offerings and an underdeveloped environmental law program? Haub Law had the environmental law program that I was looking for and combined with the scholarship it was an easy choice.

What were some of the more impactful experiences you had while at Haub Law?

The environmental litigation clinic is a very transfor­mative program. Part of that was the oversight of Karl Coplan. When I had him, Professor Coplan was a very demanding and very good professor. The envi­ronmental litigation clinic really, really helped refine my legal skills. I also made a number of connections outside of Pace as well working on those matters, and I still find them valuable today.

You were an articles editor on the Pace Environmental Law review, and you graduated with the environmental law certificate. Would you recommend those experiences?

Yes. I had to write a note for the law review and that was a very useful process. It wasn’t so much what I wrote, but the process of writing such a complex law journal is incredibly helpful. I think anybody that participates in a law review winds up being a better lawyer because you're forced to learn how to write, research and edit.

I also think the certificate program is useful. I think exposing law students to topics, concepts, and legal acronyms is helpful and gives you a running start in your career as an environmental lawyer. I think it's really invaluable and that's one of the reasons I came to Haub Law. All of the robust environmental course offerings really gave me a foundation in various areas of law, which was helpful later.

You are a partner with Carter Ledyard and Milburn LLP and director of the Environmental Practice—how did your career start out and how has it evolved?

My career definitely morphed over time. When I first started practicing law, I did a lot more traditional environmental work than I'm doing these days. I worked with RCRA and CERCLA, which are two federal hazardous waste laws. I worked heavily with NEPA and SEQRA. I worked on a lot of historic pres­ervation matters involving federal, state, and city preservation laws. I also worked on some brownfield matters, the Clean Water Act, and more. The past few years I've started doing a lot more real estate related work. That’s because my practice is very fo­cused on New York City and this is a real estate town. Helping clients resolve their land use, construction, and real estate problems has become a big driver of my work.

What advice do you have for law students who want to work in the field of environmental law at a law firm upon graduating?

I find that Haub Law students are pretty good about aggressively seeking out internships and experiences and opportunities in the areas that are meaningful to them. Whenever I see a Haub Law resume I'm always impressed, there are intern­ships at the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Litigation Clinic, and all sorts of things. It is important to fill your resume with meaningful experiences in the area you want to practice in, but also networking in those areas. And this is true, not just for environmental law, it's true for any subject matter you want to practice. It is really about networking, meeting as many people as you possibly can who might become future employers. To that end, you should become a student member of the New York State Bar Association or the New York City Bar Association. You can sit on committees as students, and I would do that aggressively and participate. You must prioritize making connections outside the law school even more than making con­nections inside the law school.

That is very good advice. Outside of the law, tell us a bit about yourself and your hobbies.

Well, I have 3 young kids, so that takes up a lot of time. So aside from my family, I also love exploring New York City and New York State. My family and I love national, state and city parks—we travel all over the place to visit them. I am also a big fitness enthusiast—I run 5ks and bike to work and do whatever I can to stay fit. I think prioritizing your personal life, physical fitness and mental health is very important. There is no ques­tion that I am a better lawyer because I dedicate time to these things. You need to have a healthy balance and if you don’t have that balance you wind up being less of a professional.