Michael Hiller and his small firm have made headlines in New York City for fighting to preserve landmark buildings and structures under threat of being erased forever by the wave of new development that has crashed over the city.

But Hiller's firm, Hiller P.C., which brands itself as a protector of the “little guy” in the face of well-heeled developers and government entities, is also making a name in an area of law that may seem far afield from land use—by taking on cases on behalf of cannabis users.

Hiller sat down with the Law Journal at his office in Midtown Manhattan, which has views of both Central Park and the nearly 1,400-foot-tall tower at 432 Park Avenue, the world's tallest residential building and a super tall symbol for many New Yorkers of luxury development in the city run amok.

With regard to his land use practice, Hiller said that it used to make up a slim portion of his book of business. This changed drastically after Mayor Bill de Blasio took office in 2014, Hiller said. De Blasio was elected on a progressive platform, but Hiller said his policies have been more pro-development than Bloomberg, the confirmed capitalist.

“He's been a disappointment as a mayor, and I was looking forward to him being the mayor,” Hiller said of de Blasio.

De Blasio's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Among Hiller's recent notable victories in his land use and preservation practice was protecting the historic clock tower at 346 Broadway in TriBeCa: a divided panel of the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that a developer may not remove the mechanical inner workings of the clock to allow construction of a large condo, a project that was given the green light by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Both the developer and the city are appealing the First Department's ruling to the state Court of Appeals.  

Hiller is also representing a group of Upper West Side residents who are fighting plans by the American Museum of Natural History to expand into the neighboring Theodore Roosevelt Park. A Manhattan judge granted a temporary restraining order last month halting the expansion at least until the parties can come together for a December hearing.

But Hiller's firm also represents a group of plaintiffs that include medical cannabis users who are bringing a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.

The medical cannabis users named in the suit are 13-year-old Alexis Bortell, who suffers from seizures; Jose Belen, an Army vet who developed post-traumatic stress disorder after a combat tour in Iraq; and Jagger Cotte, an 8-year-old boy who is diagnosed Leigh's disease, a rare affliction that statistically speaking was supposed to kill him by age 4.

Hiller's work in both land use and cannabis may come off as an odd combination of practice areas for some, but he sees a linkage between them and other practice areas that his firm takes on: in both instances, the firm represents ordinary people who aren't fabulously wealthy against large, powerful institutions.   

“The work that we do really has a meaning behind it,” Hiller said.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity. Editor's notes are in brackets.

How do you see cannabis fitting in with the rest of your firm's practice areas? Is there a thread that connects it with your other practices?

Impact litigation cuts across multiple practice areas. Commercial litigation; land use, zoning and preservation; first-party insurance work. We've done employee rights work, we've done civil rights work.

Right now we have 33 state legal medical cannabis programs across the United States, which is basically a combined population of 210 million Americans. Why is the federal government so far behind? And why are they waiting when there are so many people like Alexis and Jagger and Jose who desperately need cannabis to live? It's not just those three—there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who are in the same situation.

When you ask me what's the common thread between cannabis and, for example, suing on behalf of the disabled, they both are in need of help and right now there really aren't many medical cannabis litigators in the United States.

We have filled the void so that we can help the people who are not getting the help from the government.  

What motivated you to be an attorney that represents individuals taking on large institutions, instead of the other way around?

I was one of those kids who everyone—my family members, my friends—were like, “He's going to be a lawyer.” I didn't want to do it. I was going to be a Broadway actor. When I was in college I got the lead in every show pretty much. This is what I did and I loved.

Then, when I was in college, the Howard Beach killing happened. That was the day I decided I wanted to be a lawyer.

[In 1986, a group of African-American men were attacked by a white mob in the Howard Beach section of Queens. One of the victims was killed when he fled from the mob onto Belt Parkway and was hit by a car being driven by a police officer's son].

I see the law as an opportunity for those of us who have been admitted to practice it to use the law as a way of improving society. You talk to most lawyers, they'll tell you two things: number one, they hate their jobs and, number two, they represent people they don't like.

It's inevitable and the reason for that is that most lawyers became a lawyer for the same reason that I became a lawyer, which is to make the world a better place. To practice law, to see yourself standing in front of the court making an argument about something that is intended to have a broad impact, to make people's lives better. That's why we become lawyers.

But after we become lawyers, what happens? We have kids, we get a mortgage and, before we know it, we've got student loans. Lawyers have to sell out in order to pay the bills.

And eventually, you become accustomed to the lifestyle, if you're a successful lawyer. Lots of people, they drive fancy cars, they live in a nice house, they have a vacation home, two trips to Europe a year. People dig that, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I never had that transition.

I'm very fortunate, I have people in this firm who have the same degree of commitment that I do toward these causes. People here could go off to other firms and make more money. They could probably have that easier life that I talked about. But everybody's here because they believe in the same things that I believe in, and that is that the law should be used for social change and the betterment of society and not simply to line pockets of people who are wealthy enough to afford the most expensive lawyers.

Read more: