When I started doing community objector work ten years ago here in New Jersey, maybe 5 percent of my practice was devoted to objector work. Now its about 50 percent of my practice.

This is because now more people are hiring objector lawyers to fight against inappropriate development proposals.

When I started doing objector work, I hardly told any of my colleagues about this aspect of my legal practice. Many lawyers turned down their noses upon this kind of work.

I used to tell people who were interested in this area that it was good for lawyers who didn't want a lot friends and didn't want to get too many invitations. Even people running for office were less likely to ask for contributions from objector lawyers because they did not want to be associated with people who did this kind of work.

Now, thank Heaven, things are changing. More people understand that since developers have highly paid and capable lawyers representing them before land use boards and other government bodies, that the public needs a voice as well.

Many people are also starting to realize they cannot necessarily trust local land use board members or elected officials to represent the public's best interests when it comes to land use proposals. While most public representatives are very good, caring people, there are a few who care only about themselves and their friends.

New Jersey has recently seen a surge in the number of public officials both indicted and convicted of taking bribes in land use cases. Unfortunately, the public has good cause to be concerned.

The current set of politicians will long be out of office when the problems arise, and someone else will have to worry about them.

Working with objector lawyers, community organizations can retain experts to provide proof that bad development proposals should not be approved. And if the local officials are determined to do the wrong thing and approve the bad proposal anyway, they can appeal the approval and seek to have it reversed.

This kind of public participation is on the rise because community members now understand they have legal rights and an ability to effect a project's outcome. In effect, our public land use process has matured to this new level.

Of course, the goal is not always to defeat a project. Often the goal is simply to improve a proposal by minimizing adverse impacts. This might mean a project re-design, a reduction in a project's size, or an enhancement of certain pro-environment features such as vegetation, storm water systems, nature trails, etc.

Yes, in the last few year things have gotten better for objector lawyers. Now we have a few people who are even willing to speak with us or walk on the same side of the street. In some cases, local governments are now even happy to have us along. Indeed, we are even hired by some governments to help bring about environmentally appropriate solutions to complicated land use disputes.

And all kidding aside, no objector lawyer can really care about the popularity of his or her pursuits. Wearing a green hat and saving a community from a bad development is itself a wonderful reward.

Published: September 13, 2007

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq. writes about environmental issues. He was a New Jersey Deputy Attorney General assigned to the State Department of Environmental Protection from 1986 to 1990. Currently he is a shareholder in the environmental law firm of Lieberman & Blecher, P.C., located in Princeton, New Jersey. Stuart can be reached at slieberman@liebermanblecher.com.