Ross A. Lewin

After graduating from Yale Law School, Ross clerked for New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Alan B. Handler from 1982-83. 

Commercial Litigation

Known for his courtroom skills, Ross partners with clients such as Republic Services, Kinder Morgan and Valley Hospital. He advocates for their interests related to contractual disputes, public bidding law, and health and hospital law. According to Chambers USA 2019, “Market sources praise his ‘strong intellect’ and courtroom skills.”

Environmental Law

Ross advises energy and waste management companies, among others, on litigation brought by government agencies and private parties and on environmental issues related to business transactions. He steers clients through toxic exposure claims, cost recovery actions and natural-resource damages claims. Chambers USA 2019 describes Ross as “brilliant” and notes that he “excels at handling environmental litigation and advising clients on the complex regulations governing commercial transactions.” A recognized leader in solid-waste legal issues, he helps industry leaders navigate the complex maze of regulations.

As assistant section chief of the Environmental Protection section in the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, Ross supervised the handling of the state’s hazardous and solid-waste disputes and defended the constitutionality of key provisions of the state’s Spill Compensation and Control Act. He also was responsible for multiple litigations and proceedings in which parties sought to challenge governmental cleanup at toxic waste sites.

Appeals

A familiar face in New Jersey appellate courts, Ross’ arguments have led to 35 published precedents (and numerous unpublished rulings) on diverse issues in environmental law, health care, insurance, alcoholic beverage law, public bidding law and evidentiary privileges. He has served as appellate counsel to the New Jersey Hospital Association for many years and has appeared often in appellate courts as amicus curiae.

As deputy attorney general, Ross was involved in high-profile appeals, including the Mt. Laurel III affordable housing litigation, a challenge to New Jersey’s time limitations on eligibility for welfare, and a challenge concerning the language of a statewide ballot question.

Representative appeals include:

• American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v Hendricks, 233 N.J. 181 (2018) (defended constitutional challenge to state grants to Princeton Theological Seminary for facility and infrastructure projects)
• C.A. v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449 (2014) (confidentiality of self-critical analyses performed under the Patient Safety Act)
• Freeman v. Corzine, 629 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2010) (Commerce Clause challenge to state winery regulations)
• Presbyterian Home at Pennington, Inc. v. Borough of Pennington, 409 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div. 2009) certif. den. 201 N.J. 143 (2010) (interpretation of statute providing property tax exemptions for health care facilities for the elderly)
• Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. v. Union County Utilities Authority, 399 N.J. Super. 508 (App. Div. 2008) (federal preemption of state regulation of railroads)
• Castro v. NYT Television, 370 N.J. Super. 282 (App. Div. 2004) (private rights of action)
• Borough of Princeton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Mercer, 169 N.J. 135 (2001) (public bidding)
• R&R Marketing, LLC v. Brown Forman Corp., 158 N.J. 170 (1999) (alcoholic beverage law)
• New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries, Inc., 197 F.3d 96 (3rd Cir. 1999) (environmental law)

Representative Experience

• Represented Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals in twin lawsuits arising out of contamination at a terminal in Paulsboro, NJ. One lawsuit was brought by the NJDEP and sought remediation and recovery of $81 million in natural resource damages. The second lawsuit was a private-party action that concerned allocation of responsibility for past remediation costs associated with environmental conditions at the terminal. After the lawsuits were settled on most favorable terms, Ross continues to advise the client on its agreement with the state to implement one aspect of the site remedy.
• Represented the country’s second-largest solid-waste company in a bid dispute over a public contract covering the disposal of all solid waste generated in Mercer County (N.J.) for a five-year period. The contract value was approximately $100 million. Ross’ client was the low bidder, but its bid was rejected on technical grounds. After extensive litigation, the Appellate Division held that the rejection was erroneous and directed a contract award to Ross’ client.
• Served as co-first-chair for a three-month jury trial in a groundwater contamination case brought by 145 plaintiffs. The trial included dozens of fact witnesses. Ross handled all five expert witnesses, who were on the stand for weeks. His client was allocated a modest share of a very low financial award.
• Served as first chair for an eight-day bench trial involving contamination at an industrial property. The trial included five fact witnesses and one expert witness. The trial concluded with a defense verdict, with Ross’ client found not liable for any remediation or cleanup costs.
• Successfully defended business owners in a 30-day trial and subsequent appeal against allegations that they were parties to $5 million in fraudulent transfers. The court found that there was no fraud and awarded no relief against Ross’ clients, rulings that were affirmed on appeal.
• Negotiated complex environmental issues arising out of an oil company’s sale of a former terminal facility on 250 acres in Staten Island, which had been in operation for most of a century. The facility was the subject of both federal and state consent orders and was sold to warehouse redevelopers, who assumed all future obligations for remediation.
• Served as coordinating counsel for an industry-wide effort to negotiate with the New Jersey Attorney General’s office over mandatory disclosures required of institutional investors (such as mutual fund companies and private equity concerns) that hold equity stakes in solid-waste companies. Under a regulatory program designed to keep organized crime and other corrupt organizations out of the solid-waste industry, solid-waste companies were being required to arrange for extensive disclosures by these institutional investors and the parties whose capital they are deploying — disclosures that discouraged the entry of legitimate capital into the solid-waste industry. The initiative was successful, resulting in legislative reform that freed companies from burdensome filings.