Preserved or Forfeited: Agency Hearing Strategy and the Record That Controls Judicial Review

Bradley R. Sugarman
Bradley R. Sugarman
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Bradley R. Sugarman represents clients in administrative enforcement proceedings involving alleged environmental, health, and safety violations, defending actions brought by IDEM, EPA, and IOSHA. He chairs the Environmental Law Group at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP in Indianapolis, where his practice also spans environmental regulatory compliance, permitting, insurance coverage, and toxic tort and cost-recovery litigation in state and federal court.

Jackson L. Schroeder
Jackson L. Schroeder
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Jackson L. Schroeder handles administrative litigation at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP in Indianapolis, taking matters from agency hearings through judicial review and appeal. His practice also covers environmental litigation and insurance coverage disputes, and he builds each litigation strategy around the client's own story, questions, and goals.

Live Video-Broadcast: November 20, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Judicial Review Is Won or Lost at the Agency Hearing

Agency practice is not courtroom practice. Procedure and evidence before administrative agencies differ substantially from court, and they differ again from one agency to the next. The ground under judicial review is also moving. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Kisor, Loper, and Axon Enterprises, along with legislative changes in Indiana, are reshaping how courts treat the administrative state.

The record built at the hearing is the record the court reviews. Skip an objection, and the issue may be forfeited. Leave evidence out, and the reviewing court may never see it. Ignore exhaustion, and the challenge may stall before the merits. Misread the standard of review, and a strong argument lands on the wrong footing.

You will leave with a practical approach for each stage: perfecting and protecting the administrative record, preserving objections and legal issues, planning evidentiary strategy for the hearing, avoiding procedural pitfalls, and supplementing or challenging the record. Most of all, you will learn how to position a case for successful judicial review. These are judgment calls made in the hearing room, and no form can make them for you.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Perfecting the Record
    How to build, protect, supplement, or challenge the administrative record, knowing it is therecord that controls judicial review.
  • Agency-Specific Procedure
    How substantial differences in procedure between agencies and courts, and from one agency tothe next, change how you prepare.
  • Preserving Objections
    How to preserve objections and legal issues at the hearing so exhaustion and forfeiture do notend the case on review.
  • Evidentiary Hearing Strategy
    How to plan evidence for an agency hearing and avoid the procedural pitfalls that cost argumentsbefore review.
  • Standards of Review
    How the standard of review at the administrative level and on judicial review shapes the way youframe each issue.
  • The Shifting Administrative State
    How recent Supreme Court trends in Kisor, Loper, and Axon Enterprises and legislative changes inIndiana affect your strategy.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: November 20, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Bradley R. Sugarman, Partner and Chair | Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Bradley R. Sugarman represents clients in administrative enforcement proceedings involving alleged environmental, health, and safety violations, defending actions brought by IDEM, EPA, and IOSHA. He chairs the Environmental Law Group at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP in Indianapolis, where his practice also spans environmental regulatory compliance, permitting, insurance coverage, and toxic tort and cost-recovery litigation in state and federal court.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Sugarman received his J.D. from Vermont Law School in 1998, after participating in the Law Student Exchange Program at Hastings College of Law, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia in 1994. He also attended DePauw University. He is admitted in Indiana and Colorado and before the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Sugarman is ranked by Chambers USA in Environmental Law (2025–2026), including Band 1 for Environment in Indiana in the 2026 guide. He has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America© for Environmental Law and Insurance Law (2018–2027) and was named to Indiana Super Lawyers (2015–2019). He chaired the Indiana State Bar Association Environmental Law Section in 2004–2005.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Sugarman served on the Indianapolis Air Pollution Control Board from May 2015 to April 2016. He teaches environmental and toxic tort litigation as an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Since 2000 he has been a member of the American Bar Association Environmental Law and Natural Resources Committee, the Indiana State Bar Association Environmental Law Section, and the Indianapolis Bar Association Environmental Law and Litigation Section, and he is a member of the Indiana Air & Waste Management Association. He co-founded Bicycles for Humanity Indiana and serves on its board, and he has served on the board of Beyond Monumental since 2018.

  • Experience

In enforcement matters before IDEM, EPA, and IOSHA, Mr. Sugarman has frequently negotiated reduced penalties or agreed orders, and he obtained the retraction of a Special Notice of Liability. His compliance work includes environmental audits and self-reporting, CERCLA liability advice for contaminated sites, and air, water, and pretreatment permitting across several industries, including permit negotiation under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

In litigation, he has served as first chair and co-counsel in toxic tort and Environmental Legal Action cases, with results that include summary judgment and favorable trial-court rulings defended on appeal. His reported decisions include Markland v. Jasper County Planning and Development Dept., 829 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); C.W. v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2015); and CSX Trans., Inc. v. Appalachian Railcar Services, Inc., 509 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2007). He also recovers insurance for environmental liabilities and remediation costs and handles environmental due diligence for commercial and real estate transactions. He has spoken on trends in civil and criminal environmental enforcement and environmental audits and self-disclosure at the Indiana Environmental Conference.

 

Jackson L. Schroeder, Partner | Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Jackson L. Schroeder handles administrative litigation at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP in Indianapolis, taking matters from agency hearings through judicial review and appeal. His practice also covers environmental litigation and insurance coverage disputes, and he builds each litigation strategy around the client’s own story, questions, and goals.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Schroeder is a 2018 graduate of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and a 2015 graduate of Wabash College. He is admitted in Indiana and before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Seventh Circuits and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Schroeder was named a 2026 Up & Coming Lawyer in Indiana Lawyer’s Leadership in Law honors. Best Lawyers® has recognized him as one of the Ones to Watch in America (2025–2027) in Environmental Law, Insurance Law, and Litigation – Environmental. He is a graduate of IndyBar’s Bar Leader Class XXI.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Schroeder writes and speaks on environmental and regulatory law. His publications include “PFAS in Biosolids and the Impacts on Agriculture,” 30 Drake J. Agric. L. 215 (2025), and IndyBar commentary on EPA’s CERCLA hazardous substance designation for PFOA and PFOS and on Sackett v. EPA. He has presented on the Indiana Flood Control Act and Indiana Navigable Waters Act and, at the American Agricultural Law Association Annual Symposium, on protecting agricultural clients from PFAS.

  • Experience

Mr. Schroeder overturned Indiana Department of Labor/IOSHA orders and helped recover nearly $400,000 in fees, costs, and expenses for the client (cause no. 49D13-2106-PL-018812). He chaired a two-day administrative bench trial that upheld a DNR permit (administrative cause no. 23-041W; OALP cause no. DNR-2506-002053), and in another permit matter he excluded the opposing expert and won summary judgment affirming the DNR permit (administrative cause no. 21-027W, 16 CADDNAR 27).

On judicial review, he defended agency action that the trial court affirmed (cause no. 22D03-2312-PL-001650), and he helped secure Indiana Court of Appeals decisions affirming favorable agency action and the dismissal of collateral attacks (2025 WL 2472974; 2025 WL 2473111). In environmental litigation, he won summary judgment on an ELA claim, removed a toxic tort case to federal court under CAFA and opposed remand (2024 WL 1956211), obtained dismissal of certain claims for lack of Article III standing (2024 WL 4986613). His coverage letters have led insurers to reverse earlier denials and agree to defend.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Building the Record at the Agency Hearing: Procedure, Evidence, and Preserving Objections | Jackson L. Schroeder & Bradley R. Sugarman | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

Every judicial review begins with the record made before the agency. This session covers how to perfect the administrative record and why it matters on review, the substantial differences in procedure and evidence between agency proceedings and court and from one agency to the next, and evidentiary strategy at the hearing itself. The speakers will address how to preserve objections and legal issues, how exhaustion and forfeiture operate, and the procedural pitfalls that can cost an argument before it ever reaches a judge.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – From the Agency to the Courthouse: Standard of Review, Record Challenges, and the Shifting Administrative State | Jackson L. Schroeder & Bradley R. Sugarman | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

Once the agency decides, the record and the standard of review shape what a court can do. This session examines the standard of review at the administrative level and on judicial review, strategies for supplementing or challenging the administrative record, and how to position a case for successful judicial review. It closes with the decline of the administrative state, including recent Supreme Court trends in Kisor, Loper, and Axon Enterprises and legislative changes in Indiana.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
The Necessary Evils of Funding a Trust
The Necessary Evils of Funding a Trust Wed, October 14, 2026
Live Webcast
How Qualified Settlement Funds Streamline Settlements
How Qualified Settlement Funds Streamline Settlements Thu, October 15, 2026
Live Webcast