skip to main content
Experience List
  • Email Page
  • Create PDF
  • Print Page

Admitted to Practice

  • California, 1996
  • Washington, 1970
  • District of Columbia, 1976
  • U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. District Court Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court District of Oregon
  • U.S. District Court Western District of Washington
  • U.S. District Court District of Alaska
  • U.S. District Court District of Columbia
  • Supreme Court, Federated States of Micronesia

James P. Walsh

Bud Walsh concentrates on civil litigation and dispute resolution in state and federal courts. His focus is on complex work involving the environment and natural resources, admiralty matters, health care issues and business disputes. Bud's work includes jury and bench trials, administrative proceedings and appeals.

Practice Highlights
  • Environmental Litigation: handled oil spill litigation in Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington and the Federated States of Micronesia
  • Government Enforcement: assisted in defending investigations and forfeiture cases for the fishing industry
  • Regulatory Compliance: helped cruise industry clients comply with customs and state and federal pollution requirements
  • Business Disputes: has advised and defended the health care and fishing industries in business disputes

Representative Experience

National Resources Defense Council v. National Marines Fisheries Service

Represented the West Coast Seafood Processors and Fishermen’s Marketing Associations in a lawsuit brought by the National Resources Defense Council challenging federally mandated fishing limits. Plaintiffs contended that the National Marines Fisheries Service raised fishing limits on four species of fish in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding in connection with the fishing limits established for three species of fish, and reversed and remanded to district court its finding that the raised fishing limit for a fourth species of fish did not violate the Act. 421 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2005)

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Represented defendant/intervenor American Forest Resource Council in an action brought by several environmental organizations challenging opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is support of its decision to conduct timber harvests and authorizing incidental “takes” of the northern spotted owl, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.  The 9th Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court in part, concluding that the jeopardy analysis conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was permissible and within the agency’s discretion, but reversing the district court’s decision as to the “critical habitat” analysis. 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)

Clausen v. M/V New Carissa

Represented owners of a commercial oyster farm in a lawsuit brought against owners of a freighter which spilled 70,000 gallons of oil inside Coos Bay, Ore. At issue was defendant’s assertion that the district court erred in admitting plaintiff’s expert testimony concluding that the low level toxic effects of oil were the cause of death of over 3.5 million oysters inside the bay. Defendant stated that plaintiff’s expert testimony did not meet the threshold factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) upon which scientific testimony is deemed reliable. The 9th Circuit concluded that the proffered testimony was sufficiently reliable. 339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003)

Midwater Trawlers et al. v. Department of Commerce et al.

Represented plaintiffs in action challenging the Department of Commerce’s decision to allocate a portion of the U.S. harvest of Pacific whiting fish to the Makah Indian Tribe. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants/appellees on the basis that the allocation method used in determining the allocation was consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act and other applicable law regulating Indian treaty rights. 393 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2004)

Additional Qualifications

  • Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Carter Administration, 1978-1981
  • Staff Counsel and General Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 1972-1977
  • Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington, 1971-1972

Professional & Community Activities

  • Proctor in Admiralty, Maritime Law Association, 1984-present
blog for analyzing the critical energy and environemental issues of the day