I recently attended the Green Tie event hosted by the US Green Building Council National Capitol Region.  As I was milling about, I saw one of my green building friends that I had met nearly two years ago at the very first public speech I gave on LEED certification, risks and litigation.  Back in 2008, I had not yet coined the term LEEDigation, but I was talking about drafting contracts to assign LEED responsibilities and the Shaw Development v. Southern Builders case. 

As I started talking with my friend about his latest LEED project, I asked about his contract.  He assured me that he refused to let his company – a contractor on a design-bid-build project – guarantee LEED certification to the owner.

That’s when it hit me:  I, along with my fellow green building attorneys, are preventing LEEDigation by discussing the inherent risks and liabilities. 

Why am I bringing this up?  A recent comment on my blog referred to one of my posts as a "LEEDigation scare tactic."  I don’t describe "LEEDigation" in order to scare away owners and developers from seeking LEED certification.  The only thing I am trying to scare my readers into doing is drafting contracts that address the risks and liabilities inherent in LEED certification.  By discussing the risks and importance of contracts in the LEED certification process, attorneys are contributing to the success of LEED projects.

Someone, please, explain to me how "LEEDigation" is a scare tactic. 

Related link:  Why You Won’t Find "LEEDigation" Under Your Green Building Christmas Tree