https://mobirise.com/

AirLaws.com

Attorneys Focusing on Aviation Consultants
Serving the Legal Community
by Capt. Myron P. Papadakis
Montgomery(Houston area),TX 77356

Phone: 512-431-9315
email   airlaws@aol.com
© Airlaws.com Myron Papadakis JD Houston, Texas



AirLaws.com constantly monitors aviation news and reports to keep you informed 

Introduction to Aviation Accident Law

Investigative Methods

Papers and Lectures

AirLaws.com Addendum

Aviation Accident Law

INVESTIGATE

The basic concern in an aviation accident case is to determine what actually happened to cause or contribute to the cause of the accident. A legal accident investigation, when done completely results in establishing facts as to what happened and how it happened. From a properly conducted investigation an attorney will establish what parts malfunctioned, what human errors occurred, and what chain of events transpired. Relationships will become clear between actions and results. The potential defendants and innocent actors will be determined. Probable cause will transform into proximate cause and cause in fact.

WHO INVESTIGATES AIR ACCIDENTS

The N.T.S.B. (National Transportation Safety Board) has the duty of investigating all civilian accidents in the United States. It combines with the military and conducts a joint investigation when there is military involvement with a civilian aircraft. (midairs) It provides investigators to an I.C.A.O investigation, and at times sends an investigator, to foreign investigations at the request of the foreign country made through State. The main NTSB work is conducted in the United States, Alaska and territories. Functionally they are set up to handle two varieties of investigations. The Mass Air Disasters (airlines and commuters) and General Aviation Crashes.

Return to Top 

 INVESTIGATION?

"PARTIES to the field investigation shall be limited to those persons, government agencies, companies, and associations whose employees, functions, activities or products were involved in the accident or incident and who can provide suitable qualified technical personnel to actively assist in the field investigation."


49 U.S.C. section 831 Translated to the real world this means: Owners, operators, airframe manufacturer, engine manufacturer, propeller manufacturer, suspect component manufacturer, airline union representatives and some F.A.A. people. Generally it precludes others and almost always precludes attorney's and the representatives of possible litigants.

Return to Top

MILITARY ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS and REPORTS


All services are similar in the Handling of an aircraft accident investigation. I will limit myself to a discussion of the U.S.A.F. Reports and then talk generally of the others. There are two separate accident investigations, and there are two separate accident reports. The way the accidents are investigated is delineated in military instructions. One investigation is conducted for the purpose of gathering and disseminating fact. It is supposed to be devoid of opinion,conclusion or recommendation for safety. When a witness statement appears it has been obtained with a warning "you have been advised, that you do not need to testify, whatever you say can and will be used against you, you have a right to counsel. Your statement will be sworn and recorded." or words to that effect. The other Report is called the Board's Safety Report or the Board's Accident Report. This Board is convened to determine the cause of the accident and contributing Factors to the accident. It includes opinions, conclusions and recommendations for safety. It naturally contains a lot of the same facts that were gathered by the other board as well as independently gathered fact. The Boards sole purpose for existing is to enhance safety by determining what happened and recommending fixes to prevent reoccurrence Two Varieties of Lawsuits: NEGLIGENCE and STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY IN TORT

Return to Top 

LEGAL ACTION NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION

People may bring lawsuits in Negligence against a defendant person or company when it can be show that:

1. The Person or Company owed a duty of Care to the defendant.

2. The Person or Company breached that the duty of Care owed to the defendant has harmed.

3. The breach was a proximate Cause of the harm.

4. Damages may be awarded.

 

Return to Top 

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

And if the Breach of care was so grievous that it constituted a wanton willful act of disregard to the rights of others. This is considered Gross negligence.

Return to Top 

PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW


The designer, manufacturer and seller of a defective product may be held liable for the harm that product does. A product may be defective in one of three ways. It can be defective in design, meaning that each identical product is also defective. It may be manufactured defectively so it does not live up to its specification. Finely a product may be found defective because of its marketing in that it failed to warn of or train of the hazards inherent to user of the product.

Return to Top 

 TO WIN A PRODUCTS CASE YOU MUST PROVE ALL ELEMENTS


The Elements of a STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE ARE:
The product was defective.
The product reached the consumer in an unchanged state.
The defect was a producing cause of the accident.
The defect caused the damage.
 
Return to Top 

ESTABLISH LEGAL CAUSATION


Rules concerning causation vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The general idea is that one must show a legally allowed connection between a cause and a later effect. Again the causation must link a legal defect or legal negligence to the effect ( the accident ). Without causation you lose. You may lose because you cannot find fact causation, or you may lose because you can't find legal causation.

Return to Top 

PRODUCTS…THE TESTS FOR DEFECTIVENESS


The test for defectiveness has changed over the years and from state to state: The original test for defect was a showing that the product caused an unreasonable risk of harm to exist. ( unreasonable risk of harm test). Later the test was modified to be the risk of harm from usage of the product was greater than that a reasonable Consumer would expect. (Consumer Expectation Test) and finally a test for defectiveness that balances the utility of the product as produced with the risk of usage of that design and production. ( risk vs. utility test).

Return to Top 

 PRODUCT RISK V. UTILITY… TEST OF DEFECTIVENESS


Most jurisdictions apply the RISK vs. UTILITY TEST in the following manner:

1. If at the time of design of the allegedly defective part there could have been created an alternate design (technically feasible) and if this alternate design was cost effective (economically possible). And,

2. If the alternative design would make the product safer. And,

3. IF the alternative design did not detract from product utility then,

4. The original design or process was defective.

 Return to Top 

EFFECT OF RISK V. UTILITY

Basically the Risk vs. Utility test for defectiveness is: If the designer could have economically made his product safer, using technology available at the time of manufacture, he should have. This test for defect has an automatic state of the art defense built within, and it does not require a manufacturer to advance the state of the art. It does require the manufacturer to remain abreast of the state of the industry and utilize alternative designs if they are cost effective as well as safer.
Return to Top 

 LEGAL CAUSATION

Rules concerning causation vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The general idea is that one must show a legally allowed connection between a cause and a later effect. Again the causation must link a legal defect or legal negligence to the effect ( the accident ). Without causation you lose. You may lose because you cannot find fact causation, or you may lose because you can't find legal causation.


PUNITVE DAMAGE - THE TEST


The test of punitive damages is often stated as Gross Conduct that is wanton or willful disregard of the rights of others. Another test of gross conduct is whether or not it shocks the conscience. A single act in disregard of safety is usually not enough. It is when a pattern has been established. More than one occasion where the manufacturer had notice of a problem and did nothing. Better yet, the manufacturer knew and considered the fatal consequences and still failed to act. Better yet the manufacturer cheated, lied and covered up defect willfully. In any negligence case, any product case, and any punitive action case the important things to discover are:

1. What the defendant knew.

2. What the defendant should have known.

3. When the defendant knew it.

4. When the defendant should have known it.

5. What the defendant did or didn't do when armed with the knowledge.

 

Return to Top 

PRODUCT LIABILITY STATE OF THE ART

State of the Art is an engineering concept and principal that has been scientifically duplicated and reduced to capture. It may only be proven by drawings and scale prototypes. It must be witnessed to be captured. The state of the art advancement has occurred at the first date of patentable invention, not the date of patent issue, not the date of design of the production widget, and not at the date of production of the widget. The invention may be a terrible idea, it may never be used - and it is still a state of the art advance.

Return to top


LEGAL STATE OF THE ART

Only in the legal risk utility - test analysis for defect do we find a reasoned approach to what legal authors were looking for when they used the words State of the Art. It is explained that an alternative design is only required when it is technically available and reasonable economical. This is probably what the authors should mean when they say it was state of the art from a legal standpoint. In fact, it would be an advance in legal writing in the area of products liability to use the exact wording" LEGAL STATE OF THE ART" to be defined as a design that was technically feasible and economically reasonable for inclusion in the product under scrutiny at the date of manufacture.


Return to Top 

PRODUCT LIABILITY STATE OF INDUSTRY


State of the Industry is a misnomer with no exact and decided and agreed upon meaning. Probably the accepted idea would be that state of the industry probably has to do with accepted practice within the industry or engineering discipline. It has been used in the context to hold that a manufacturer do the same as the average manufacturer does. In the second meaning it is legally useless.

Return to Top 

PRODUCT LIABILITY - CHANGES IN PRODUCTS

Obviously a manufacturer will not change a product that is working well, selling well and is profitable, unless something can be done to improve the product. This may be in the form of a "product improvement" fix. These generally enhance the product in one or more of the following ways.

1. By adopting a newer technology.

2. By making a safer product.

3. By making the widget cheaper while maintaining the same utility.

4. Increasing the utility while maintaining the same cost.

5. Deleting some undesirable feature without decreasing utility.

6. To suit marketing


Return to top

PRODUCT LIABILITY ENGINEERING CHANGES ECP


The Engineering Change Proposal - E.C.P. is forwarded to the government for approval by the company. An E.C.P. may be submitted by the manufacturer simply because the manufacturer has thought up a better product or simply because the manufacturer has discovered a shortcoming in his product as it exists. The government can also suggest the need for a change or an improvement by asking or demanding that the manufacturer create a E.C.P. for a specific improvement desired by the military.Once such an improvement is designed by the manufacturer in the form of an E.C.P. it can not be installed unless it is approved by the government. In the Air Force this approval is in the form of an Air force Technical Order. In the navy it is called a Engineering Order.

Return to Top 

T. G.A.R.A. The General Aviation Revitalization Act ( Tort Reform ) Pub. L. 103 - 298, August 17, 1994, 108 Stat. 1552.


On August 17th President Clinton signed the ACT into law. At that time he stated. "This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety." The act establishes an 18 year statute of repose for the aircraft of older design and manufacture. No liability actions may be held against any general aviation aircraft that is older than 18 years from the date of its first sale.

Return to Top 

DEALING WITH THE FAA

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 empowers and requires the administrator of the FAA to enforce rules and regulate security provisions. These powers are far reaching and include the ability to impose civil, criminal and equitable sanctions against violations. The administrator is empowered, in the public interest, to order, amend, suspend, and revoke type certificates, airworthiness certificates, air carrier certificates or agency certificates. However, before issuing such an order the administrator must specify the charges, give notice and allow the alleged offender an opportunity to reply.

Return to top

C.A.M.I. - Civil Aero Medical Institute

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Civil Aero Medical Institute, at Oklahoma city is a F.A.A. facility that has many important facets. It houses Airmen's Medical Records for the F.A.A., it houses the F.A.A. laboratory that conducts Toxicological examinations post accident. It may house the best aero medical library in the country. C.A.M.I trains all F.A.A. designated physicians as Aviation Medical Examiners. These doctors are those allowed to administer F.A.A. physical examinations to airmen. The A.M.E. is not a F.A.A. employee, but an independent licensee with designated powers and responsibilities. There are approximately 7,000 such physicians in the United States. All of these examiners are physicians, and some carry with them other specialty skills such as military flight surgeon designations and myriads of medical certifications and board specialties. C.A.M.I. is routinely asked to participate in accident investigations. The original request comes through the N.T.S.B., and is forwarded to the F.A.A. and thence to C.A.M.I. 


Return to Top 

 INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM

The military and the manufacturers keep track of incidents and the outcomes, thereof. They do this through a computerized system. Typically there will be the narrative of the incident. Manufacturers investigation, status and recommendation as well as How mal codes. This computerized system is in place in the military and is shared with the manufacturer. What it is called changes with manufacturer. Data from such a computerized system is discoverable from the manufacturer or from the government. 

 Return to Top 

SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

Within this context of an already filed lawsuit where already identified evidence is tampered with or "lost" the sanctions have ranged from stern lectures, to pecuniary discovery sanctions, to striking portions of pleading or defenses, to dismissal. The sanctions may continue outside the context of the original case by giving rise to disbarment actions and legal malpractice lawsuits. Much of what sanctions are imposed by the court seems to hinge on:

1. How important the evidence was to the issue of the case

2. What level of certainty can be placed as to who was responsible for the act, and

3. Whether the act was intentional or accidental.

Spoliation means more than the simple spoiling of evidence, in fact the word is not derived from spoil. Spoliation signifies an intentional or negligent plundering of the evidence. Recently Negligent Spoliation of evidence has become a cause of action unto itself. It probably has the same elements as any negligence claim, namely: 

1. A duty to preserve evidence must be established.

2. That duty must be negligently breached by the party owing the duty.

3. The destruction of the evidence must be the proximate cause of the damage complained of. ( loss of the ability to win with another cause of action )

4. There must be provable damage.

Like a malpractice law suit a spoliation suit requires the proof of two issues. 

1. There was the spoliation and

2. Without the spoliation the plaintiff would have prevailed.

 

Return to top


 FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT (1976)

Up until the year 1976 the Government of the United States had not codified under what conditions a Foreign Sovereignty could be sued in United States Courts. The act sets forth the requirements for jurisdiction of a Foreign as well as delineates the restrictions as to liability of the foreign. Under the act any entity that is an agency or instrumentality of a Foreign state, be it a company, a majority share of an agency or company or a political subdivision of the state is defined as the variety of potential defendant envisioned by the act. This is true so long as the entity in no way is it already a citizen of the United states or created under the laws of a third country. Provisions of the act that makes the entity available to the jurisdiction of our courts are found in the exceptions provisions. They include:

1. Waiver of jurisdiction, by appearance

2. Commercial activities waiver

3. Tortuous Activity waiver - among others. The most commonly utilized is the commercial Activities waiver.

 

Return to Top 

FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

The United States of America may be sued for it's negligence. FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT 28, U.S.C Section 1346. The action is one of negligence. For the purposes of the act the elements are:

1. That a federal employee breeched a non discretionary duty, while acting in the course and scope of his employment.

2. That the negligent act or failure to act was a cause of the damage.

3. That damage was to property, personal injury or wrongful death. ( The claim is for money damages.)

4. The law of the place of the occurrence is such that it would place liability on the government had the government been a person.

Procedurally the United States government can not be sued until an administrative claim requirement is complied with and finished. The Statute of Limits for an action is two years 

Return to Top 

 FAA and Federal Tort Claim Liability

The federal government is involved with all facets of aviation through the Federal Aviation Agency. They are responsible for the certification of aircraft, for the testing of airmen, for the control of air traffic, and for providing weather and aeronautical warnings. The key test of government negligence is to determine if the government breached a non discretionary duty. When a government employee breaches a requirement you may feel optimistic that such a failure was non discretionary. Aviation Federal Tort Claims act cases are common in areas of:

a. Mid air collisions.

b. Runway traffic collisions.

c. Failure to warn of weather.

d. Failure to provide weather briefing.

e. Radar vectoring into weather.

f. Radar vectoring into terrain.

g. Failure to monitor and warn of approach deviations.

h. Unworkable navigation facilities.

i. Failure to handle emergencies correctly.

 

Return to Top 

FOIA INFORMATION

The F.O.I.A. act is a very helpful tool in obtaining information from the U.S. Government. The government is required by law to release government records to the public. There are several commonly used exceptions to the release of such data. The most common are:

1. Classified National Security

2. Privileged, Official Business, Safety Board privilege ( portions of military accidents)

3. Privacy Act restrictions

4. Discretionary government discussions before decisions.

5. Proprietary agreements where disclosure jeopardizes trade secrets.

 

Return to Top 

CONFLICT OF LAW

Conflicts on the other hand is the facet of law relied upon to determine what law should apply to the case at hand.Even though a certain court may have jurisdiction to hear a case it may be forced to apply the substantive law of a foreign forum in determining the outcome. Looking at conflicts first, there are to rules that are used to determine what law will apply. The minority and old position was that the place of the accident determines the law to be applied. The " SITUS " rule is deemed unfair since it subjects victims to some times harsh results simply because an airplane chose to crash on an unfavorable forum. Perhaps it was the intention of the aircraft to overfly the forum entirely. 

Return to Top 

SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS RULE

The significant contacts rule applies the law of the forum with the most significant contacts to the accident. This test requires the court to analyse the entire accident and rule where the most significant contacts reside. This analysis will include:

1. crash site location.

2. Residence of all defendants.

3. Residence of the plaintiff.

4. Nature of and purpose of the flight.

5. Where the negligence occurred.

6. Where the product was designed and manufactured.

7. other significant factors.

In such situations the law of all possible forums must be studied for their ramifications. It is not unusual to see state statutes written 

Return to Top 

MONTREAL CONVENTION 2003

The United Nations formed a organization to unify and make standard the rules, regulations and law all countries are expected to abide by when they participate in International Airline operations, both Civilian passenger and air cargo. About 110 nations have signed and others work within the system voluntarily while having not completed ratification. The ICAO organization resides in Montreal Canada and it oversees many aspects of International flying. The latest treaty is called the MONTREAL CONVENTION 2003 and its entire 24 pages may be obtained in PDF format by Googling MONTREAL CONVENTION 2003 The convention allows and controls lawsuits aimed at the airline defendant. It does not include third parties or aircraft manufacturers. This Convention suggests to be covered you must be a ticketed passenger on an international ticket (NRSA Frequent flyer pass, vacation pass etc are same as fare paying passengers.) You must be hurt or killed by an accident on an aircraft or in the process of boarding or deplaning. Then you have 2 years to file a lawsuit in one of several places to include – City of Take off or destination, Airline home and a few other places. If the victim fits the criteria the victim will be compensated according to a simple negligence action. Generally will be computed using method allowable in victims country of residence. Punitive damages are not allowed under Montreal. 

Return to Top 

 INTERNATIONAL ACCIDENTS

The Montreal Convention attempts to bring some uniformity to a vastly complex system of laws as practiced and suitable for the differing 109 countries. On International flights from one Hub city to another foreign hub it is likely to have a vast array nations represented in the passenger Manifesrt. As example thing of a Lufthansa flight from New York Kennedy to Frankfort Germany. Here the list might easily include persons from USA, Central America, Germany and several European, middle Eastern and Former Eastern Bloc countries. If there were not soe uniformity provided by the Convention it would be hectic. The truth is it still is as Montreal does not trump all foreign laws and so litigation outcome are vastly different. International accidents of countries under Montreal do a systematic investigation under agreed investigative protocol called ANNEX 13. These reports are handled and released by the Host Nation. 

Return to Top 

THE TEAM CONCEPT WORKS

Unless you are a huge law firm, it is very unlikely that you have individual Attorneys who specialize in every of the myriad of legal specialties recognized by the ABA or the various State Bar Associations. Aviation Law is one such discipline that requires intensified knowledge in areas peculiar to that specific endeavor. Lawyers are used to hiring testifying expert witnesses to help bridge the understanding gap. It may be more cost effective and outcome determinative to form a team of consulting attorneys who can help you master the complex field for the benefit of your client. Consider this. 

Return to Top 

 AIRLAWS MEMBERS CONDUCT A NO COST PRIVELEGED CASE EVALUATION

The work involves analyzing and evaluating preliminary accident data. This evaluation is completed at no charge to any potential client. A determination will be made and an opinion issued as to what legal avenues may be taken. A further determination will be issued suggesting preliminary work and investigation that need be accomplished. At this time an evaluation will be completed to determine if there is reason to employ this firm or another to handle your specific case requirements. We prefer to work on contingent fee, which means there is no legal fee charged to a client unless there is successful recovery by verdict or settlement. 

Return to Top 

II. AIRLAWS MEMBERS WILL CONSULT ON MOST FACETS OF AVIATION LITIGATION. 

 

THEY CAN EVALUATE or PERFORM: 

 
            1. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS.
            2. SIMULATIONS, RECONSTRUCTIONS 
            3. PILOTING and TEST PILOTING AS REQUIRED.
            4. RESEARCH INTO AIRCRAFT HISTORY
            5. DAMAGE EXPERTISE IN VALUE OF AIRLINE CAREERS.
            6. TRIAL PREPARATION AS REQUESTED. 
            7. CROSS EXAMINATION OF HOSTILE TECHNICAL EXPERTS.
            8. TAKE or SECOND CHAIR DEPOSITIONS.


THEY CAN EVALUATE:

 
            1. PILOT TRAINING RECORDS.
            2. PILOT PROFICIENCY.
            3. PILOT RECENCY.
            4. TECHNICAL AND AVIATION DISCOVERY.
            5. AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS ISSUES.
            6. AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ISSUES.


THEY CAN:

            1. SUGGEST, HIRE AND WORKING WITH TESTIFYING AVIATION EXPERTS
            2. ENGAGE IN TRIAL PARTICIPATION .
            3. TESTIFY AS EXPERT WITNESS IN SPECIFIC AREAS.
            4. PREPARE DEMONSTRATIVE AVIATION EXHIBITS FOR TRIAL.
            5. PARTICIPATE IN ALTERNATE RESOLUTIONS.
            6. SECOND CHAIR TRIAL.


NON LITIGATION AVIATION MATTERS AIRLAWS MEMBERS CONSULT ON:



            1. EMPLOYMENT GRIEVANCES UNDER RLA.
            2. EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNDER RLA.
            3. WHISTLEBLOWERS UNDER RLA and FELA.
            4. UNION GRIEVANCE, AND SYSTEM BOARD REPRESENTATIONS.
            5. DEFEND PILOTS FROM FAA VIOLATIONS AND CERTIFICATION ACTIONS.
            6. REPRESENT PILOT IN MEDICAL LICENSING ISSUES.
            7. UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATING CONSULTING.
            8. DEFENDING FBO against FAA VIOLATIONS.
            9. DEFENDING MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AGAINST FAA VIOLATIONS.
            10. WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT TRANSACTIONS
            11. ESTATE PLANNING BASED ON AIRLINE CREW RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS PACKAGES.
            12. AIRLINE WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CASES.
            13. EEOC AND ERISA ISSUES WITH PILOTS UNION CONTRACTS.
            14. DAMAGE ISSUES OF PILOT JOB VALUES AND EXPECTATIONS.
            15. MILITARY BENEFIT PACKAGES.
            16. PBGCA ISSUES.
            17. CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECODS.


The AIRLAWS members focus includes but is not limited to:


Aviation, Aviation Accidents, Aviation Accident Investigations, Aviation Litigation, Air Crash Litigation, Aviation Law, Airplane Accidents, Helicopter Accidents. Military accidents, General Aviation, General Aviation Accidents, Commuter Accidents, Airline Accidents, Air Worthiness, Air Worthiness Directives, Aviation Safety, Air Safety, Air Safety Investigations, Air Safety Investigators. Aviation Schools, Flight training, Air Crew Training, Air Crews, Piloting, Pilot Errors, Human Factors, Design Induced Errors, Probable Cause, Aviation Safety Reporting, Airmen Certification, Aircraft Certification, Military Contract Defense, Aircraft Design, Aircraft Engineers, Air Crash Litigation, Aviation records, Cockpit Resource Management, System Safety, Aircraft Warning Systems, Aircraft Automation. Approach Accidents, Cruise Accidents, Take Off Accidents, Aircraft Icing, CFIT Accidents, Landing Accidents, and more. 

If your legal problems involve any of the following subject matters THE AIRLAWS GROUP can either help you or direct you to places where your problem can be professionally resolved.

In addition to our in house expertise and experience, we have access to other attorneys with an aviation focus in aviation specialty areas.If that is insufficient we have listings of several hundred lay specialist we would suggest you employ for your client’s benefit as case specifics require.

Please contact us if you have questions on : Aviation Law, Aviation Safety, Air Safety, Air Safety Investigations, Air Safety Investigators, Air Craft Accidents, Airplane Accidents, Airline Accidents, Helicopter Accidents, Military Accidents, Flight Schools, Flight Training, IFR Training, Aeronautical Charts, Aerodynamic Flutter, Aero-elastic Deformation, Aeronautical Systems, Aerodynamic Forces, Approach, Approach Stall, Approach Speed , Approach Accidents, Aviation Accidents, Aviation Litigation, Aviation Schools, Aviation Safety Reporting, Aviation Records, Aviation Law Firm, Aircraft Accident Investigations, Aircraft Fires, Autopilot, Auto flight, Auto Throttles, Air Worthiness, Air Worthiness Directives, Air Crew Training, Air Crews, Air Crash Litigation, Air Accidents, Air Crash, Aircraft Noise, Air Port Accidents, Airport Control Zones, Approach Control, Air Traffic Control, Air Traffic, Aircraft Warning Systems, Aircraft Automation, Airline Accidents, Aircraft Certification, Airmen Certification, Aircraft design, Aircraft engineers, Aircraft Maintenance, Aircraft Overhaul and Repair, Overhaul and Repair, Inspect and Repair, Airframe Icing, Airframe Failures, Airframe Flutter, Helicopter Accidents. Military Accidents, General Aviation, General Aviation Accidents, Commuter Accidents, Flight training, Piloting, Pilot Errors, Human factors, Design Induced Error, Military Contract Defense, Cockpit Resource Management, System Safety in Aviation, Cruise Accidents, Take Off Accidents, Icing Encounters, CFIT Accidents, Landing Accidents. Experts, Expert Witnesses, Next Generation Automation, Auto Flight and more. .


 

CONTINGENT FEES - YOUR CASE IS OUR CASE

Your client is the reason we exist. In the aircraft accident, personal injury and strict product liability aspects of the plaintiff litigation we can conduct business on a contingent fee basis or on a task based hourly basis. We are exceptionally comfortable with a contingent arrangement because it means quite simply that we give more than lip service loyalty to your cause. Your cause becomes our cause, and quite simply if we do not prevail for you, we do not get paid.

Your Privilege is our Privilege. Because all Airlaw’s members are attorneys, another advantage of hiring us as associated/Consulting counsel is that in every case our work product is covered by both attorney client and work product privileges unless you decide to designate an Airlaw’s member to be a testifying expert. Obviously the pay agreement in such a case would be hourly.

Throughout the litigation process we recognize that the case is the client's. We provide professional advice so the lead attorney and a client can make appropriate decisions on the many issues of the case. 

Statistics show that most viable cases settle before trial, but our firm has learned that the best settlements can only be achieved when the defense recognizes the economic risk of going to trial.
Return to top

Accident Experience

Home

Aircraft Accident Experience
Aviation is a safe undertaking, but like the sea, aviation is unforgiving of errors. Marvel that, highly technical aircraft products, flown by varying pilot skill levels, into mobile weather conditions, and into changing and sometimes hostile environments, are regularly accomplished safely.

To understand how safe the situation is all one need do is to look to the insurance industry. Airline pilots and flight crews have not had to pay added hazardous duty premiums for their life insurance premiums while plying the aviation trade. This safety record has come about in the United States for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that Corporate and Governmental management and their families all fly regularly. Another reason is that the pilots who sit in front of the aircraft always get to the scene of the accident first. Pilots are personally at risk when they make mistakes.
Unfortunately, tragedies do occur and persons are hurt and sometimes killed. The unfortunate accident demands an investigation conducted for several very different reasons. Let it be said that almost all aviation accidents involve some human error, be it pilot error, controller error, weather errors, supervisory errors, training errors or engineering product design errors or construction errors.
It is a legal precedent in US law that persons or companies are required to pay damages for the negligent harm they cause through needless accidents., and
INVESTIGATIONS

Investigations are conducted for three basic reasons

GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS
The Government conducts investigations for two reasons. The first reason is to determine if a crime of sabotage or terrorism has occurred. This is in essence a criminal investigation. The Government conducts investigations to gather facts, to evaluate cause of the accident, and to make recommendations for safety that would lower the risk that an identical accident would re occur. In short they look for criminal activity and to promote aviation safety in the future.

LEGAL INVESTIGATIONS and EVIDENCE GATHERING
A lawyer is needed to conduct an investigation to legally help the tragedies victims. It is a legal precedent in US law that persons or companies are required to pay damages for the negligent harm they cause through needless accidents. It is also legal precedent in US law that persons or companies are required to pay damages for harm their defective product causes in accidents. The lawyers helps the injured victim or the families of deceased victims find fault and thereby recover money damages for the injury or wrongful death.

LEGAL INVESTIGATIONS START WHERE THE GOVERNMENT STOPS

Legal investigations are always larger and more encompassing than the Governments Aircraft Accident Investigation. That of course does not mean that the attorneys can conduct an investigation to the scale and cost of any government investigation. The point is that the government does a good job of finding and cataloging much of factual evidence and data. The lawyers have access to this and it is from the Governments final report that Lawyers expand the search and conduct much deeper analysis of the true proximate cause of the tragedy.

Lawyers have discovery tools not available and not typically utilized in governmental investigations. Lawyers are looking to the past accidents and to historical negligence and defect history. The government tries to prevent the next accident.

Legal Investigations have many legal tools to aid in their investigation that are almost never used by the government in the conduct of its investigation.


Lawyers regularly utilize:Subpoena powers
Sworn deposition testimony of hostile witnesses
Sworn written questions called interrogatories,
Sworn admissions of fact
Sworn and force production of documents and things
Freedom Of Information Requests.
TRIALS

The trial to a verdict is the only chance an air crash victim has to recover damages. That is why it is vital that the accident investigation be as thorough as possible. A trial Lawyer will, over a lifetime of Legal work, go to trial on hundreds of occasions. The air crash victim’s trial occurs once and the trial firm will generally win or lose for the victim, based on the efficacy and thoroughness of investigation and trial preparation. Because the Aviation endeavor is so technically sophisticated and cutting edge, it makes sense to utilize a trial firm capable of handling this variety of case.
Courtesy NTSB
NTSB photo courtesy Al Diehl

Publications and Speeches by
AirLaws Members 

Home
Myron Papadakis

Textbook (800 pages): B. McCormick and M. P. Papadakis, Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation, Lawyers and Judges Press, 1996, second edition 1999, third edition 2003.

Reference Text (900 pages): M.P. Papadakis, Civil Trial Practice: Winning Techniques of Successful Trial Attorneys, Lawyers and Judges Press,2000.

Book (chapter): “Air Crash Litigation”, Best of Trial – Products Liability, Association of Trial Lawyers of America Press, 1999 

CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE…WINNING TECHNIQUES

“The text provides an advanced source of legal tactics, strategies and helpful hints for the attorney… This work should be especially helpful to those embarking upon a trial career. It should be required reading for young trial lawyers and new associates.”


________________TURNER BRANCH Albuquerque, NM


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION AND LITIGATION


“There is a wealth of material on numerous aviation technical and legal subjects, and it is useful to have all of this in one convenient place.”


________________LEE KRIENDLER, New York, NY


"Aviation Accident Reconstruction and Litigation should be at the right hand of every lawyer who would attempt to handle aviation litigation. Even the most experienced aviation litigation specialists do not have the wealth of knowledge contained in this text."

________________ Dan Cathcart, Los Angeles, CA


“Engineers and probably lawyers will appreciate the book’s refreshing review of elements of aerodynamics, structural design, power plants and aircraft control techniques as well as nuances of Applicable law. The appendix alone is a learning experience. This book should be considered a post graduate guide for the hardware oriented aircraft accident investigator, especially the sections on human errors and human factors. I wish I had this compendium during the early years of my professional experience.”


________________ Jerome Lederer,


________________ First Director of Safety CAB


________________ NASA director of Safety during Apollo


________________President Emeritus –Flight Safety Foundation


Chapter 7 – “Aircraft Accident Investigations “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter14. Data recovery – “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 16. – “Manufacturers Safety and Quality Control “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter17, – “Quality Control, Quality assurance, Total quality Programs “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011 Myron Papadakis and Dr. Emmanuel Papadakis Phd.


Chapter 18 – “Air Navigation a Brave new World “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 19 – “ACritical Review of Safety Programs “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 20 “ Safety- Lessons Not Learned” Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 21 – “Paperwork, when an airliner flies a tree must die” Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 49 – “Checklist for In House Aviation Accident Investigations Investigations “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 50– “Automation : Precursor to Disaster “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Chapter 51 “Safely Retiring” Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


Appendix B. Internet Resources Chapter – Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011


“Airline Safety” TALPA Symposium proceeding, Istanbul Turkey, October 2010


Primer on Investigations, Absolute Litigator PESI, Las Vegas ,NV, 2006


The Military Contract Defense, Absolute Litigator PESI, Las Vegas ,NV, 2006


The Airline Industry, -a look back, Absolute Litigator PESI, Las Vegas ,NV, 2006


Safety and Liability, Absolute Litigator PESI, Las Vegas ,NV, 2006


 The Safety Office, Work, Horse Seminar AFTL, Orlando, FL, 2006


Military Contract Defense, Work Horse Seminar AFTL, Orlando ,FL, 2006


Aftermath of Disaster ,Work Horse Seminar AFTL, Orlando, FL, 2006


The Aftermath of Disaster, a Primer on Government and Legal Investigations of Aviation Crashes, State Bar of Texas Aviation Section Meeting, 2004


Out Maneuvering THE MILITARY CONTRACT DEFENSE, State Bar of Texas Aviation Section Meeting, 2004


Safety the place where Liability hangs out, L&J Product Liability Seminar ,Scottsdale AZ, 2002

Price Ainsworth
The Federal Products Bill— The Courts and the Counterrevolution Against Consumers, (Ainsworth and Spivey) 129 Trial Lawyers Forum, 22, 1985

A 1868 Constitutional Convention- ( Parker and Ainsworth) 48 Texas Bar Journal 896, 1985
Removing the Blindfold: General Verdicts and Letting the Jury Know the Effects of its Answers ( Miller and Ainsworth) 29 S Tex L.J. 233, 1987
Resolving the Asbestos Personal Injury Crisis , ( Miller and Ainsworth) 10 Rev.of Lit. 419, 1991
“First of all hands off to you guys for your effort and nice, super tool. Good work mobirise team. We are expecting the new version soon with advance functionality with full bootstrap design. Great effort and super UI experience with easy drag & drop with no time design bootstrap builder in present web design world.”

“First of all hands off to you guys for your effort and nice, super tool. Good work mobirise team. We are expecting the new version soon with advance functionality with full bootstrap design. Great effort and super UI experience with easy drag & drop with no time design bootstrap builder in present web design world.”

C. Barry Wetherington

How Clean is Clean? Cost Efficient Alternatives to a Site Cleanup,-Moderator and Speaker - American Law Firm Association -National Client Seminar- Orlando - March 1991


Complex Toxic Tort and Environmental Trial Demonstration,-Speaker and Demonstrator - Cross Examination of Plaintiffs Expert-Michigan Defense Trial Counsel - Traverse City - June 1991


Micro bursts: The Unsolved Danger,-Article - Air Line Pilot - July 1992


Alphabet Soup: State and Federal Environmental Laws Affecting Municipalities,-Speaker Michigan Municipal League Environmental Liability Compliance, -October 1991 - Grand Rapids


Owens v Allis-Chalmers: The Standard of Proof in a Design Defect Case,-Co-Author - Michigan Bar Journal - February 1990


Mediation: The Michigan Practice, -Speaker - SMU Aviation Law Symposium - Dallas - March 1987

Capt. Jimmy Dean Johnson

FOIA, Chapter 9, Civil Trial Practice , Land J publishing ,2000

FOIA, chapter, Aircraft accident Reconstruction and Litigation, L and J publishing , 3rd edition 2003

 MARK GOODRICH

Effective Use of a Consulting Attorney, Chapter 5.,Civil Trial Practice ,L and J, 2000

Leaseback Liability, Harcourt Brace Aviation Accident Investigator ( Oct 1982)

Shortcuts to disaster, Harcourt Brace Aviation Accident Investigator ( Feb.83)

Fatal Crash follows Gyro loss, Harcourt Brace Aviation Accident Investigator ( June 1983)

Blind Descent in the Rockies, Harcourt Brace Aviation Accident Investigator ( Nov 83)

Knowledgeable Preflighting an Save Your Life, Harcourt Brace Aviation Accident Investigator (Dec.83)

Aircraft Accident Investigations in Foreign Jurisdictions, Harcourt Brace Aviation Accident Investigator ( July 85)

Use of Airworthiness Directives as evidence in Litigation, SMU Air law Symposium, Feb 1986)

Cross Examination of an Expert for the Plaintiff, ABA National Institute on Aviation Litigation, May 87)

Discovery in an Automobile Litigation, Automobile Accident Law and Practice Matthew Bender

State Of The art, Aviation technology: A Myth, Trial Magazine ( Feb 91)

Damages For Fear of Imminent Personal Harm, 10 Product Liability Reporter 111( 1991)

Deposing the Hostile Expert In Automobile Crashworthiness Cases, Automobile Accident Law and Practice Matthew Bender 1992

Litigating the Helicopter Case, Trial magazine ( Mar 1994)

Aviation cases Without Personal Injury, Trail magazine (August 1995)

Discovering and Preserving Evidence in Aviation Cases, Trial Magazine (Feb 1993)

Electronic Flight management Systems and Their Impact on Litigation, SMU AIRL LAW SYMPOSIUM ( Feb 1998)

The Pilot and Airline Perspective on Security and Sept 11th, LPBA Jan 2002

The International Airline Climate in the War on Terrorism,

Flight Test Safety in the Non Structured Test Environment, SETP May 2004

Cost /Benefit of TSA since 9/11, LPBA summer meeting, 2003

Publications, Papers, and Speeches Myron Papadakis

Panelist , 737 Rudder problems, SMU AIR LAW SYMPOSIUM, Feb., 2003

The Aftermath of Disaster, a Primer on Government and Legal Investigations of Aviation Crashes, State Bar of Texas Aviation Section Meeting, 6-15 –04

Out Maneuvering THE MILITARY CONTRACT DEFENSE ( if you look hard enough it probably wasn’t designed or built to specifications) …Avoid Military 3d. , State Bar of Texas Aviation Section Meeting, 6-15 –04

The Safety Office, The place where liability hangs out, State Bar of Texas Aviation Section Meeting, 6-15 –04

Safety the place where Liability hangs out, L and J Product law seminar Tucson AZ, 2002

Twenty-Twenty Hindsight, AIEE Summer Symposium, 2000.

Military Contract Update, Aviation Section, State Bar of Texas, 1999.

Railway Labor Act Negotiating, Aviation Section, State Bar of Texas, 1998.

Recent Developments Regarding Aviation Litigation and the Military Contractor Defense, Aviation Section, ATLA Summer Convention, 1998.

Military Contract Defense, Lawyer Pilot Bar Association Journal, Winter 1995.

Military Contract Defense: What the Justice Meant to Say, Texas State Bar Convention, Aviation Law Section, 1995.

The Aftermath of Disaster: The Accident Investigation, Texas Trial Lawyers Association State Seminar, September 1995 (civil, military, ICAO investigations).

The Aftermath of Disaster: The Accident Investigation, Lawyer Pilot’s Bar Association, Law Journal, Spring 1995.

T. H. Davis and M. P. Papadakis, Deposing a Hostile Expert Witness, Travis County Bar Association Seminar, November 4, 1994.

Top Gun Alum, feature article and interview, South Texas College of Law, Quarterly, Fall 1994.

Early Detection of Hazards, International Society of Air Safety Investigators Forum, Paris, France, October 1994.

General Aviation Air Crash Litigation, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Trial Magazine, July 1985.

Strict Product Liability: An Evolving Tool, Systems Safety Society International Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 1, International Systems Safety Conference, 1983.

Military Contract Defense, Embry Riddle Symposium Proceedings, Air Law and Insurance, 1982, Orlando, Florida.

New Technology in Aircraft Accident Investigation, International Society of Air Safety Investigators Forum, Caracas, Venezuela, October 1978.

The Law, Federal Safety Regulations and Safety Are Not and Need Not Be Mutually Exclusive, International Society of Air Safety Investigators Forum, Montreal, Canada, October 1977.

A Botched Investigation: Are There Legal Ramifications?, International Society of Air Safety Investigators Forum, Washington, D.C., October 1976.

Occupations at High Burn Risk, Miami Occupational Burn Conference, NIOSH, 1977.

Air Crash Litigation, Kansas Trial Lawyer Advocate, July/August 1976.

Plaintiff’s Attorney Role in General Aviation Air Crash Litigation, Part II, Texas Trial Lawyer Forum, July/August 1976.

Admissibility of Aircraft Accident Reports: An Update, South Texas College of Law, Law Journal, 1976.

Plaintiff’s Attorney Role in General Aviation Air Crash Litigation, Texas Trial Lawyer Forum, April/June 1976.

Search and Rescue, Conceptual Studies, NADC, Johnsville, 1969.

Search and Rescue, Southeast Asia (Section 1 – Secret), NADC, Johnsville, 1969.

PAUL McCarthy

Chapter – “Aircraft Accident Investigations “ Aircraft Accident Reconstruction and Litigation “ 4th ed, L and J publishing , 2011

Douglas Moss

Aircraft Handling Characteristics during Convective Plume Penetrations, (Indigo Energy Facility,CA)

Aircraft Handling Characteristics During Convective Plume Penetration ( Calpine Sutter Power Plant, CA

Glint/Glitter Evaluation of SEG and Convective Plume Penetration ( Higgins Power Plant, NV)

Technical Articles ,Douglas Service Magazine , MD-80 and MD -90 aircraft.

 DONALD MACIEJEWSKI

PUBLICATIONS - Seminars & Papers:


How to Deal with Dirty Trial Tactics- The Rambo Litigator


Aviation Expert Witnesses- The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly


IPE Seminar for Paralegals- Maximizing Trial Preparation Skills


NBI Litigation Seminar- What the Civil Court Trial Judges Want Every Lawyer to Know


Taking and Defending Effective Depositions


The Federal Tort Claims Act-10 Practice Tips that Every Lawyer Should Know


The Bakers Dozen- 13 Trial Practice Tips that Judges Expect Trial Lawyers to Know


Presenting Evidence in Complex Litigation

Overcoming Juris Bias


Demonstrative Evidence- Making Your Case to the Jury

"The Government Made Me Do It"- How to Combat the Government Contractor Defense

The Government Contractor Defense- A Practical Primer for Trial Practitioners

"Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire"- How to Effectively Cross Examine Expert and Lay Witnesses

Florida Bar Aviation Law Certification Review Course- Aviation Labor and Employment Law

"Product Liability and Personal Injury Law Suits in the Wake of Toyota- Understanding the Impact of Toyota Recall Legislation"

Elimination of Biases in Legal Practice

More Than Just a Case- How to Treat & Care for Clients in

Personal Injury & Wrongful Death Accident Cases


Technology in the Courtroom- Smoking Mirrors or the Search for Truth?


Using the Department of Army (DA) Personnel as Witnesses to Private Litigation- A "How To" Guide


From a "Miracle on the Hudson" to a "Disaster in Buffalo"-


How to Come Up with Winning Recipe for Preventing Fatal Aircraft Accidents


"Leadership 101"- The Difference Between Being a Travel Agent and a Tour Guide


Aviation Stress and Fatigue- How Pilots Deal with Sleep Depravation and Work Overload


Aviation Medicine- How Self Imposed Stresses Can Effect Pilot Performance


"10 Ways to Screw Up a Good Aviation Case!"


Winning Techniques For Cross- Examination


The Art of Settlement


Bad Faith and Insurance Claims in Florida


Insurance Coverage Litigation in Florida


Protecting Yourself from Legal Malpractice Claims


Advanced Auto Accident Litigation


Litigation Skills: A Short Course for Legal Assistants


A Litigation Paralegal’s Guide to Case Management


How to Successfully Resolve Automobile Injury Cases


Evidence and Trial Practice in Florida


Anatomy of Personal Injury Trial

 JAMES T. CROUSE

TEXTBOOK

Aviation Law, 2006, Co-Author, critically acclaimed and widely used in aviation law courses in the United States.


Presentations and Papers

1. "Confidentiality Agreements and Protective Orders: the Plaintiff's Perspective," James T. Crouse. Southern Methodist University Air Law Symposium (25th), February 22, 1991. Paper available upon request


2. “The Fourth Horseman Rears Its Ugly Head: The MACHIN Privilege Threatens Doom To Service Members’ Product Liability Claims,” James T. Crouse. Southern Methodist University Air Law Symposium, February 1993 Paper available upon request


3. Panel Discussion: "Government Liability for Surplus Property Sales," James T. Crouse. Southern Methodist University Air Law Symposium (30th), March 1, 1996. Paper available upon request


4. "Litigating Against The Foreign Aviation Defendant: A Practical Primer for Plaintiffs," James T. Crouse. Southern Methodist University Air Law Symposium (34th), February 25, 2000. Paper available upon request


5. "Daubert 101 - How to Make Your Expert Daubert - Proof," James T. Crouse, North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, 2003. Paper available upon request


6. "Litigation and Aviation Safety: Friends or Foes?" James T. Crouse, Aviation Safety, 2005. Available Online: PDF (14 MB)


Myron "Pappy" Papadakis

UNDERGRADUATE 

University Texas, BA Mathematics

 

GRADUATE 

University West Florida, Masters Degree, Aeronautical Science 

 

LAW SCHOOL 

South Texas College Law , Cum Laude 

 

ADMITTED  

TEXAS 

 

TRIALS 30+

 

MILITARY  

U.S. Navy, F-4 Phantom II, A-4 Skyhawk

 

AIRLINES  

Delta Airlines

 

FLIGHT HOURS 18,000+ 

 

RATINGS Turbo Jet Engineer, Commercial Multi Engine, ATP MD-88

 

MEMBERSHIPS 

State Bar of Texas, ALPA  

 

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Municipal Judge

 

FOCUS: 

Aviation, Product Liability, Personal Injury

 

Bill in addition to his Navy career as a carrier and then AGGRESSOR pilot and Deklta Captain, is the only airline pilot - lawyer who also served as a judge. Bills Practice focuses on Personal Injury, product liability and aviation. 

 

He has hands on experience in Railway Labor Act grievance procedures and union Contract negotiations. 

Howard Dulmage

UNDERGRADUATE 

University Of Texas, B.B.A. 1975

 

LAW SCHOOL 

South Texas College of Law JD 2000, Law Review ,Deans List.  

 

ADMITTED  

Texas, 5th Circuit, All U.S. District Courts, Texas

 

PARTICIPATED IN TRIAL 20 + 

 

AIRLINE ;Active AIRLINE CAPTAIN

 

FLIGHT HOURS 19,000+

 

RATINGS 

ATP Boeing 737, Commercial, ASEL, GLIDER, CFII FE.

 

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS WORKED 15+

 

MEMBERSHIPS  

SBOT, Chair Aviation Section SBOT, Lawyer Pilot Bar, NTSB bar, AAJ  

 

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Million Dollar Advocates, Former member ATC Committee to Federal aviation Administration. NELA Board Certified Labor Law. 

 

PUBLICATIONS. 

Past regular Author to Airline Safety Publication, Panelist SMU AIR LAW symposium, Whistle blower Panelist,

 

UNION WORK   

Safety committee and Chair of union committee for major airline 10 years.

 

FOCUS Product Liability, Negligence, Aviation Law, Aviation Labor Law, Federal Tort Claims Act cases 

 

Howard served as Launch Customer Team Next Generation Boeing 737. He is past flight instructor for the Debby Rihn US Aerobatic Team. Howard has acted as expert consultant and witness in air disaster lawsuits. He is NELA BOARD CERTIFIED in employment and Labor Law. 

 

Capt. William Dvorak 

UNDERGRADUATE 

University Texas, BA Mathematics

 

GRADUATE 

University West Florida, Masters Degree, Aeronautical Science 

 

LAW SCHOOL 

South Texas College Law , Cum Laude 

 

ADMITTED  

TEXAS 

 

TRIALS 30+

 

MILITARY  

U.S. Navy, F-4 Phantom II, A-4 Skyhawk

 

AIRLINES  

Delta Airlines

 

FLIGHT HOURS 18,000+ 

 

RATINGS Turbo Jet Engineer, Commercial Multi Engine, ATP MD-88

 

MEMBERSHIPS 

State Bar of Texas, ALPA  

 

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Municipal Judge

 

FOCUS: 

Aviation, Product Liability, Personal Injury

 

Bill in addition to his Navy career as a carrier and then AGGRESSOR pilot and Deklta Captain, is the only airline pilot - lawyer who also served as a judge. Bills Practice focuses on Personal Injury, product liability and aviation. 

 

He has hands on experience in Railway Labor Act grievance procedures and union Contract negotiations. 

Capt. Paul McCarthy

UNDERGRADUATE

Mr. Crouse was graduated from Davidson College in 1971


LAW SCHOOL

Duke Law School in 1980.


ADMITTED

Louisiana, New York, District of Columbia, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia (1997)


AVIATION

U.S. Army aircraft maintenance officer, maintenance test pilot, and research and development test pilot. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army's Aviation Maintenance Officer's Course and Test Pilot School.


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT CASES

50+


MILITARY

He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U .S. Army Reserve in 1997. holds commercial and instrument rotary wing ratings (1973), rated in the Bell UH-1/205, Bell OH-58/206 and Hughes/Schweizer 269/300 series aircraft.


FLIGHT HOURS

5000+


MEMBERSHIPS

American Advocates for Justice, Trial Lawyers’ Association, North Advocates for Justice, Lawyer Pilots’ Bar Association, National Transportation Safety Board Association, the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics, the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI).


HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Adjunct Professor of Aviation Law at Duke Law School. He is co-author of the critically acclaimed Aviation Law, Senior Lecturing Fellow (Aviation Law) Duke University, Durham, NorthCarolina (2001-Present);


PUBLICATIONS

Numerous, goto the Publications web page.


FOCUS

Aviation Accident Litigations

 

BOOKS BY JAMES T CROUSE


Capt. Mark Goodrich 

UNDERGRADUATE

Mr. Crouse was graduated from Davidson College in 1971


LAW SCHOOL

Duke Law School in 1980.


ADMITTED

Louisiana, New York, District of Columbia, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia (1997)


AVIATION

U.S. Army aircraft maintenance officer, maintenance test pilot, and research and development test pilot. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army's Aviation Maintenance Officer's Course and Test Pilot School.


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT CASES

50+


MILITARY

He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U .S. Army Reserve in 1997. holds commercial and instrument rotary wing ratings (1973), rated in the Bell UH-1/205, Bell OH-58/206 and Hughes/Schweizer 269/300 series aircraft.


FLIGHT HOURS

5000+


MEMBERSHIPS

American Advocates for Justice, Trial Lawyers’ Association, North Advocates for Justice, Lawyer Pilots’ Bar Association, National Transportation Safety Board Association, the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics, the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI).


HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Adjunct Professor of Aviation Law at Duke Law School. He is co-author of the critically acclaimed Aviation Law, Senior Lecturing Fellow (Aviation Law) Duke University, Durham, NorthCarolina (2001-Present);


PUBLICATIONS

Numerous, goto the Publications web page.


FOCUS

Aviation Accident Litigations

 

BOOKS BY JAMES T CROUSE


James T Crouse 

UNDERGRADUATE

Mr. Crouse was graduated from Davidson College in 1971


LAW SCHOOL

Duke Law School in 1980.


ADMITTED

Louisiana, New York, District of Columbia, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia (1997)


AVIATION

U.S. Army aircraft maintenance officer, maintenance test pilot, and research and development test pilot. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army's Aviation Maintenance Officer's Course and Test Pilot School.


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT CASES

50+


MILITARY

He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U .S. Army Reserve in 1997. holds commercial and instrument rotary wing ratings (1973), rated in the Bell UH-1/205, Bell OH-58/206 and Hughes/Schweizer 269/300 series aircraft.


FLIGHT HOURS

5000+


MEMBERSHIPS

American Advocates for Justice, Trial Lawyers’ Association, North Advocates for Justice, Lawyer Pilots’ Bar Association, National Transportation Safety Board Association, the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics, the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI).


HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Adjunct Professor of Aviation Law at Duke Law School. He is co-author of the critically acclaimed Aviation Law, Senior Lecturing Fellow (Aviation Law) Duke University, Durham, NorthCarolina (2001-Present);


PUBLICATIONS

Numerous, goto the Publications web page.


FOCUS

Aviation Accident Litigations

 

BOOKS BY JAMES T CROUSE


Capt. Jim Hourin

UNDERGRADUATE

United States Air Force Academy 

 

LAW SCHOOL

TULANE 1976  

 

ADMITTED 

Louisiana

 

MILITARY  

US Air Force Brigadier General (retired)

 

MILITARY AIRCRAFT FLOWN 

T-38 Talon , F-100 Super sabre, F-4 Phantom , F-15 Eagle, Stan Eval.

 

AIRLINES 

DELTA AIRLINES, Captain (retired)  

 

FLIGHT HOURS 18,000+ 

 

RATINGS 

Turbo jet engineer, Commercial Multi engine, ATP Captain DC-9,B727, B737, B757, B767, L1011, Simulator Instructor and LCA 

 

MEMBERSHIPS 

Louisiana Bar, Nationbal Guard Association, ALPA

 

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

 C.O. 122 TFS, CO Air National Guard State of Louisiana.

 

PUBLICATIONS 

Numerous. 

 

ALPA UNION 

CENTRAL AIR SAFETY VICE CHAIRMAN

 

 FOCUS: 

General law and Consulting.

 

Jim is a graduate of Air Force academy. He flew F-100, F-4 and F-15 Eagles. 

Jim flew internationally for Delta Airlines. He was a simulator instructor in Deltas training Center. He was active defending Delta Pilots who had allegedly violated FAA rules. Jim owns a twin engine aircraft and still teaches flying. 

 


 

Capt. Jimmy Dean Johnson 

UNDERGRADUATE 

St. Edwards University 1985

 

LAW SCHOOL

South Texas College of Law 1988 

 

ADMITTED 

Texas, North Carolina, Distruict of Columbia, Federal District Court ,Southern and Western Districts of Texas 

 

TRIALS 35+ 

 

AIRLINES 

DELTA AIRLINES INC. Captain (retired)   

 

FLIGHT HOURS 25,000+ 

 

RATINGS Turbo jet and Reciprocating Engineer , ATP DC-9, CV-880, CV-990, B727, Lockheed L1011, Rotor craft, helicopter, CFI, Advanced Ground Instructor. 

 

 

MEMBERSHIPS 

STATE BAR OF TEXAS, DC BAR, AAJ, HTLA, TTLAR

 

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Million Dollar Advocates

 

PUBLICATIONS Several  

 

 FOCUS: Product Liability and Personal Injury 

 

JD owned his own flying school. Later he flew for Delta airlines for 33 years. During that time he owned a music recoirding studio that released several million dollar seller records

 

JD graduated Law school in 1985 and concentrated on Aviation. He has handled military and civilian cases. He has produced many million dollar verdicts and settlements for those who have lost loved ones in aviation tragedies. 

 

Capt. Charles "Chuck" Barnett 

UNDERGRADUATE

University Illinois, BA 1982, ERAU MBS aeronautical operations 1990


LAW SCHOOL

Northern Illinois University College of Law 2000, Focus aviation Law


ADMITTED

Illinois


LICENSES

TYPE RATED Boeing 757, 767, 777, FE 727 Current 777 Captain International Routes.


PARTICIPATED IN TRIALS

Numerous


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS RECONSTRUCTED

Numerous


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS WORKED

Numerous


MILITARY

USAF MILITARY AIRCRAFT FLOWN T-38 TRAINERS: B-52, B-1


AIRLINE

AMERICAN


FLIGHT HOURS

18,000


MEMBERSHIPS

AOPA, USAF DAEDALIONS, APA, ABA, ABA aviation section, EAA, Illinois Bar Association, LPBA, NTSB Bar Association.


FOCUS

All aspects of aviation accident Law. A major focus is on Pilot Certification actions in defense of pilot’s licenses. Work in FAA medical license suspensions and revocations. Some aspects of grievance and union safety work. Interested on becoming associated counsel on cases where aeronautical experience is a benefit to clients needs. 

Capt. Sidney A. Cook

UNDERGRADUATE

University Illinois, BA 1982, ERAU MBS aeronautical operations 1990


LAW SCHOOL

Northern Illinois University College of Law 2000, Focus aviation Law


ADMITTED

Illinois


LICENSES

TYPE RATED Boeing 757, 767, 777, FE 727 Current 777 Captain International Routes.


PARTICIPATED IN TRIALS

Numerous


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS RECONSTRUCTED

Numerous


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS WORKED

Numerous


MILITARY

USAF MILITARY AIRCRAFT FLOWN T-38 TRAINERS: B-52, B-1


AIRLINE

AMERICAN


FLIGHT HOURS

18,000


MEMBERSHIPS

AOPA, USAF DAEDALIONS, APA, ABA, ABA aviation section, EAA, Illinois Bar Association, LPBA, NTSB Bar Association.


FOCUS

All aspects of aviation accident Law. A major focus is on Pilot Certification actions in defense of pilot’s licenses. Work in FAA medical license suspensions and revocations. Some aspects of grievance and union safety work. Interested on becoming associated counsel on cases where aeronautical experience is a benefit to clients needs. 

Capt. Glenn Cook

UNDERGRADUATE   

WAKE FOREST B.A.

 GRADUATE 

CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY M.S.A.

 

LAW SCHOOL 

ATLANTA LAW SCHOOL

 

ADMITTED 

Georgia 

MILITARY 

U.S. Navy Lt. Commander

 

MILITARY AIRCRAFT  

T-28, T-2, Ta-4, S-3 

 

AIRLINES 

Delta Airlines Inc

 

FLIGHT HOURS 16,000+ 

 

RATINGS 

ATP B-737, B757, DC-9, B767

 

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS WORKED -SEVERAL

 

MEMBERSHIPS 

NTSB BAR, LPBA, GEORGIA BAR AVIATION SECTION, ALPA, 

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Association of Conflict Resolution, 

 

FOCUS:  

FAA certification actions, general law, and union work.  

 

Glenn handles FAA Certification Actions and administrative union hearings. He is active in NTSB bar work and the Lawyer Pilot Bar Association.  

 

Douglas Moss

UNDERGRADUATE

Bachelor Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Tech, 1976


GRADUATE

M.S. Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Tech, 1981, M.B.A., University of Phoenix, 1994


LAW SCHOOL

Concord Law School, J.D., cum laud, 2008


ADMITTED

California Bar, 2008; and U.S. CA Central District, 2008


LICENSES

ATP MEL; Types: MD-11, MD-80/90, A320; Commercial SEL; CFI, CFII, MEI, Flight Engineer - Turbojet; Private SES


A/C QUALIFIED

A320, MD-80/90, DC-9, F-4, F-15, T-37, T-38, A-37, T-33, T-46, T-34, + numerous general aviation aircraft.


MILITARY

U.S. Air Force (Lt Col)


AIRLINE

United Airlines, EVA, Great China, UNI Air, ULand, China Northern Airlines


FLIGHT HOURS

11,500+


MEMBERSHIPS

SETP, ALPA, SAE, AIAA, NTSB BAR, LPBA, Assoc for Aviation Psychology 


WORK HISTORY

USAF fighter pilot, experimental test pilot, and instructor at USAF Test Pilot School.

Senior Experimental Test Pilot at the Douglas Aircraft Company.

Pilot at United Airlines and other airlines in Far East.

Technical engineering consultant and LOSA evaluator at United Airlines.

Instructor of Aviation Human Factors at USC’s Viterbi School of Engineering.

Principle accident investigator and reconstructionist at AeroPacific Consulting.


Testifying expert on handling qualities and other impacts of thermal plumes from power plants. Sole practitioner in law office, focusing on estate planning, wills/trusts, and FAA enforcement actions.


PUBLICATIONS

Aircraft Handling Characteristics During Convective Plume Penetration (Indigo Energy Facility, CA);

Aircraft Handling Characteristics During Convective Plume Penetration (Calpine Sutter Power Plant, CA); 

Glint/Glitter Evaluation of SEGS, and Convective Plume Evaluation of Higgins Power Plant, Primm, NV.

Numerous technical articles in Douglas Service Magazine concerning MD-80 and MD-90 aircraft.


FOCUS

Technical and legal analysis of aviation issues, especially concerning human factors in aviation, causal analysis of aircraft accidents, accident reconstruction, human error analysis, engineering analysis of aircraft systems, and aircrew standard of care.

Joe Garnett

UNDERGRADUATE 

Texas A and M , cum laude 1982  

 

LAW SCHOOL 

South Texas College of Law 1985

 

JURY TRIALS 

40+

 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS 

15+

 

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS WORKED 

10 

 

MEMBERSHIPS 

State Bar of Texas, Texas Bar Foundation

  

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Million Dollar Advocate, Texas Super Lawyer, Order of Barristers, Board Certified Personal Injury Law  

 

PUBLICATIONS – several

 

FOCUS 

Product Liability Law, Personal Injury, Commercial 

 

Joe worked for Justice Sears McGee of the Texas Supreme Court. He is a Shareholder at Sheehy Serpe and Ware where he is a trial attorney. He has tried many cases to multi million dollar verdicts. He is a Million Dollar Advocate. His is also a “Texas Super Lawyer”

Howard Acosta 

UNDERGRADUATE 

Florida State University

 

LAW SCHOOL

Florida State University

 

ADDMITTED

 Florida

 

PARTICIPATED in TRIALS

  50+

 

MILITARY

US Navy HIGHEST RANK: Lieutenant Commander

 

MILITARY AIRCRAFT FLOWN

P-3c

 

LICENSES

Private and Commercial

 

FLIGHT HOURS

3000 +

 

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS WORKED

35

 

MEMBERSHIPS

Florida Bar, Florida Trial Lawyers, ATLA

 

HONORS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Florida Trial Lawyers Most Tenacious Attorney, Board Certified in Litigation, Personal Injury, National Board of Trail Advocacy, AV Rated by Martindale Hubbell.

 

FOCUS

Product Liability and Personal Injury

Howard Acosta has a motto. “The impossible takes a little longer.” Howard was recently named Florida’s Most Tenacious Attorney. He was a United States Navy P3c Aircraft Commander and accumulated 3,000 flying hours – mostly at night and in bad weather while searching for Russian submarines in the Arctic and other inhospitable waters.

In Aviation Law, very few attorneys have had such a successful and influential career. Howard was lead trial attorney for the F-16 wire-bundle fire case featured on 60 Minutes. He was lead plaintiff attorney in the Navy S-3 flight control malfunction case. He also handled a B-1 Bomber accident and a B-52 fuel tank explosion case. He has been successful in beating the Military Contractor Defense by developing evidence that the military really did not approve the pertinent specification in the design process.

Julian Hayes 

LAW SCHOOL

University of Denver College of Law

 

ADMITTED 

CO and FL 1999

 

PARTICIPATED IN TRIALS 

YES NUMEROUS 

 

FLYING 

Mr. Hayes is a certified pilot

 

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS RECONSTRUCTED  

OVER 100 

 

MILITARY

Mr. Hayes is a veteran of the United States Air Force and is a veteran of the war in Viet Nam

 

MEMBERSHIP

State Bar Florida,

 

FOCUS

Testifying expert on all varieties of AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL matters. All FAA training curricula for ATC. Radar reconstruction of flight path. GPS flight path reconstruction, Testifying on Content of FAA generated Air Traffic Control Manual. Mr. Hayes has been an accident investigator and consultant for more than 25 years and has reviewed hundreds of accidents. If you need an expert in Air Traffic Control and the interrelationship with flight crews, then we can help you today.

 

FOCUS PILOT CERTIFICATION ACTIONS

Have you received a notice of violation or suspension of your pilot certificate? You must take immediate action to prevent the FAA from acting before you have an opportunity to respond. If you fail to act, your flight privileges may be revoked


FOCUS AVIATION ACCIDENTS

Have you or a family member suffered losses as a result of an aviation accident? Mr. Hayes can assist you in recovering damages for your losses.

 

Price Ainsworth

UNDERGRADUATE  

Texas Tech University Bachelor Arts Summa Cum Laude 1981

 

LAW SCHOOL 

University of Texas – with honors 1984 

 

ADMITTED

Several Appellate Courts and U.S. Supreme Court

 

MEMBERSHIPS

ABA, ABOTA, TTLA, AAJ,  

 

HONORS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Texas Bar Foundation, Texas Super Lawyer, ABOTA Advocate, Board Certified Personal Injury Lawyer, Trial Lawyer Director T.T.L.A.  

 

PUBLICATIONS 

 Numerous Law Publications

 

FOCUS

Product Liability, Personal Injury, 

 

Price served as Law Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District Honorable Robert Parker Presiding. He practiced with Law Firm Fisher Gallagher Perrin and Lewis, for 10 years. He was partner with Broadus Spivey in Austin Texas. He opened his firm in 2003. Price has tried many cases to verdicts greater than a million dollars. Price is an ABOTA member and a Member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum.  

James C. (JC) Buehler

James C. (JC) Buehler

Indianapolis, Indiana 46280

317-225-2757

jcb@buehlerlaw.com

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Arts, Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis

Doctor of Jurisprudence, Indiana University McKinney School of Law-Indianapolis, 

EMPLOYMENT

Buehler Law Group, Carmel, Indiana, 1984-present. Commercial and Aviation law

ATA Airlines, Inc., 1983-2008; Pilot,

Member, FMS Nav    

Disruptive Passenger Task Force, 1996-97;

FOQA Working Group; 1999-2000 

Rocap Rocap, et al, 1983-84; Insurance, Commercial and Aviation law

Lewis & Wagner, 1979-83; Insurance, Aviation and Commercial law

EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT/APPOINTMENTS


Adjunct Professor, Business law, University of Indianapolis, 1980- 1982

Adjunct Professor, Commercial law, Indiana University Kelley School of Business, 1982-1987


PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS, PUBLICATIONS and AFFILIATIONS


Guest Lecturer, Aviation Law and Part 121 Operations, Purdue University School of Aviation Technology, 2000-2013 (various)

Faculty, Civil Air Patrol/USAFA JAG/Legal Officer College, 1999, 2004


Speaker and Presenter at various FAA Safety seminars

Wing Legal Officer/Check Pilot, Civil Air Patrol/USAFA, 1997-2004

Director, Indiana Aviation Hall of Fame, Inc.;

Heroes Club, Inc. 

Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), 2003-07

37 jury trials

Member, International Air and Safety Transportation Bar Assn.;

Lawyer-Pilots Bar Assn.; 

Indiana State and Indianapolis Bar Assns.

Member, Quiet Birdmen

FAA PILOT CERTIFICATES AND RATINGS


Airline Transport Pilot-Airplane Multiengine Land, Commercial Privileges Airplane Single Engine Land and Helicopter

Captain Type Ratings: B-727; B-737, B-757/767, CE-500, IA-JET 

Certified Flight Instructor Airplane Single and Multiengine, Instrument-Airplane 

FAA Designated Pilot Examiner GL11-60

Single-pilot qualified, C500/550/550B

B757 Check Airman (Sim and Aircraft), 1992-2007

Check Airman, SolutionsAir (various aircraft-Part 135), 2007-present

AirLaws Disclaimers 

Update - 25 March 2014 - Some search engines associate Airlaws.com with:
“PAPADAKIS & ALLMAN" which was active in Austin, TX from 1995 through 2001. Their legal relationship was dissolved and ended in 2001. Both attorneys remain members of AIRLAWS located at WWW.Airlaws.com.
Advertising for Lawyers by Lawyers
[This Web site is not intended to advertise services directly to the public.
Services offered by this web site are directed to attorneys and other law firms.]

DISCLAIMERS:


AIRLAWS is not a Law Firm. AIRLAWS is a consulting group made up of lawyer members with a focus on aviation.

AIRLAWS members are attorneys who may be contacted directly.

AIRLAWS is a network of attorneys who focus on some varying aspects of the aeronautical endeavor.

Attorneys who are members of AIRLAWS have no dues, agreements or other fee arrangements, nor do they have expense sharing arrangements.


The lawyers named as members of AIRLAWS have assumed no joint professional responsibility for any clients’ legal affairs. To the contrary individual members of AIRLAWS may be contacted and contracted for directly.

Whenever an AIRLAWS attorney member is hired or contracted for by other law firms or attorney, then individual consulting contracts are made solely between the employing law firm and the associated AIRLAW’S member in strict conformance with applicable State Bar Rules.


AIRLAW’S member attorneys do offer some services with a focus on the aeronautical endeavor. State Bar of Texas does not have Aviation Law as a certification specialty. A focus is specifically not a claim of a specialty.

The AIRLAW advertising is directed exclusively to other attorneys competent in their own right to evaluate and handle legal matters. AIRLAWS members offer consulting and associate counsel help to such qualified lawyers.


AIRLAWS members do not advertise in this web site communication that the lawyer is a specialist except when permitted under Texas Rule 7.04 or other Bar rules apply.

AIRLAWS member do focus a portion of their practice on specific facets of the aeronautical endeavor. AIRLAW’S members competency in the aeronautical arena should be evaluated and measured by special education, training, or experience in the particular area of endeavor. The advertising by AIRLAWS is aimed at other law firms and lawyers fully capable of evaluating an AIRLAWS members capabilities.


Certification by the Texas or other State Board of Legal Specialization involves special education, training, and experience, Aviation law is not a recognized area of certification by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Some other State’s Boards do recognize aviation law as a specialty.

Lawyers who advertise in this web site have some focus on specialized facets of the aeronautical endeavor. Our advertisement is to other attorneys and Law firms seeking help in some facet of aviation related areas.

A website for a network of lawyers which is not a law firm is not considered a communication initiated by a law firm and since it is targeted at other attorneys is exempt of TEXAS rule 7.07.

Our Web site advertisement does discloses the willingness or potential willingness of individual AIRLAW’S members to on occasion be employed to render services on a contingent fee basis, when such occurs and a member enters into such an agreement the hiring attorney or lead lawyer or law firm complies with rules for associating a counsel. This includes the lead attorney complying with and agreeing with client concerning the addition of an AIRLAWS member to the clients case.

The AIRLAWS Web site is not a Law firm. It is a network of attorneys. The cost of the website and its content is controlled by owner Atty: Myron Papadakis, TX SBOT

This web site of consulting attorneys continues the traditional and long established tradition of Texas Paragraph (a)(3) that permits advertisements by lawyers to other lawyers in legal directories and legal newspapers …whether written or electronic.

The AIRLAWS web site complies and contains information about the name, location, telephone numbers, and general availability of a lawyer to work on specific aeronautical endeavors for other attorneys and law firms.

Special care has been taken to ensure that each member of AIRLAWS is not paying for the cost of maintaining the web site. Each attorney has a resume posted showing experience and professional qualifications of each.

This web site is designed and directed to qualified practicing attorneys and not directly to clients. Lawyers and Law firms who may wish to consult or otherwise employ an AIRLAW’S member are attuned to checking the work histories and experience levels of other attorneys through State Bar disciplinary and ethics committees as well as membership in professional groups attained through merit.

20. Should you as Lead attorney or your law firm hire an AIRLAWS member on a contingent arrangement be sure that such arrangement complies with Forum State Bar Rules that normally include:
a. That such association is in writing.
b. That such addition is agreed to and signed by hiring attorney.
c. That such addition is agreed to and signed by ultimate client.
d. That such addition is agreed to and signed by associated attorney.
e. That work expected of newly associated attorney is delineated briefly in writing.
f. That the percentage of legal fee assigned to newly associated attorney is in writing.
g. That it is understood and agreed that the associated attorneys fee is paid from attorneys percentage of legal fee and addition of said attorney does not diminish client’s percentage expectation as to recovery..
h. If addition of an associate attorney will increase costs of litigation – client must be so advised and must agree.
Copies of such agreement for additional associated counsel will be provided to ultimate client, and associated counsel.

DISCLAIMER: As AIRLAWS is a network of independent lawyers, AIRLAWS is not in any way form or shape responsible in any fashion for the legal work performed by a member.

Note if you chose to employ and utilize a Member of AIRLAWS in an official appearance in any case in which the associated attorney is not a member of that State Bar, it is the hiring attorney or lead attorney’s duty to introduce and to comply with state regulations or Federal Regulations concerning Pro HAC requirements

AirLaws.com Contact Form

Attorneys Focusing on Aviation     Consultants Serving the Legal Community