At the behest of the Egyptian Government, and at U.S. taxpayer expense, the NTSB has been raising additional pieces of the B-767 so analyses of other components of the wreckage can be made to see if mechanical malfunction contributed to the crash.
We at The Wolk Law Firm have been analyzing the aircraft hydraulic and flight control systems to learn if previously found flaws in other Boeing aircraft and those made by other manufacturers may have contributed to this accident.
Unlike the Boeing 737 rudder, three hydraulic actuators drive the elevators of the B-767 for each of the two panels, left and right. Therefore, it would appear at this time that a single point failure could not cause an elevator panel split or elevator pitch down in the manner suggested by the flight data recorder. For example, the autopilot was off by the time the elevator split was observed on the FDR data and there is no sign or mention of runaway elevator trim. Moreover, no pilot of any aircraft, including us, can account for the deliberate shutting down of both powerplants during the steep descent, when just pulling the power levers back to idle would have accomplished the same thing while making power available when needed once the descent was arrested.
While the NTSB has only selectively released FDR data and, therefore, the public conclusions cannot yet be tested by outside experts, further investigation and analyses are warranted to see if some unusual hydraulic or electrical malfunction would allow the elevators or either panel of them to move without physical manipulation of the control column.
In 1994, an incident was reported and investigated by the AAIB in England involving a B-747 which on takeoff suffered one of the four elevator panels to go to the down position, uncommanded by the flight deck crew. Fortunately, the other three panels were aerodynamically adequate to prevent a crash, but the incident was significant enough for the aircraft hydraulic system to be modified. The differences between the B-747 incident and the Boeing 767 flight controls are many, but this anomaly in the B-747 was a surprise, which means that vagaries in hydraulic flight controls and the role they may play in aircraft accidents, even the seemingly inexplicable ones, cannot be disregarded.
Here’s the responsible approach. The NTSB should hire experts in the field of aircraft flight controls and hydraulics to ascertain whether any one or more system malfunctions in the B-767 elevator could cause an uncommanded down elevator or elevator panel. If such a possibility exists, it must be tested against the reliable FDR data to see if that data is consistent with that type of malfunction. This would accomplish two things. First, it would restore shaken confidence in one of the world’s great airplanes. Second, if a malfunction scenario fits, immediate correction will prevent further accidents.
The NTSB was a little too quick to recommend the FBI investigate this accident as a criminal matter before doing much flight system evaluation. Little mention is made of the illegality of the captain leaving the flight deck without first asking one of the many pilots in the back to relieve him. The Boeing 767 is certificated to be flown by a minimum of two pilots, not one in the cockpit and another in the back. While the FAA and foreign certifying authorities wink at the practice, the thought of one person at the controls of an airplane certified to be flown by a minimum of two is scary either when one may be bent on murder/suicide, or faces an emergency that even two pilots may find insurmountable.
The Good Ole Boy Network is alive and well because no one in authority wants to rock the boat by prohibiting one pilot of a two pilot airplane from leaving the flight deck while in the air. Whenever I see it as a passenger, however, I hold my breath until both pilots are back in the cockpit because, while airplanes are much simpler today than when three pilots were mandated, in an emergency one pilot is often not enough. Who is to say whether the first officer of Egyptair 990 would even have attempted what he is alleged to have done if the Captain were on the flight deck and what result there would have been if the Captain had called for help before things got out of control.
We prepared three lawsuits against Egyptair arising out of this crash, and represent the families of seven victims.
2002 Schelpert vs. Egyptair
This was one of many cases The Wolk Law Firm handled arising from the tragic sabotage of Egyptair Flight 990 by its co-pilot. In what would be one of the earlier acts of terrorism preceding 9/11, and it was established by Arthur Wolk as one of the lead litigators on the plaintiffs’ steering committee that there was no mechanical cause that could explain the sudden gyrations of the Boeing 767 that preceded its break-up and crash into the Atlantic Ocean. It was also established that the co-pilot had a history of mental instability that was ignored by Egyptian authorities before the crash. In this instance The Wolk Law Firm represented the families of five persons who died in the crash. In one of the only cases tried from that accident, The Wolk Law Firm recovered more than two million dollars in a bench trial in a Federal Court in Los Angeles.
For further information contact Arthur Alan Wolk at 215-545-4220.
Showing posts with label Egyptair 990 Crash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egyptair 990 Crash. Show all posts
Saturday, March 23, 2002
Friday, March 17, 2000
DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT-DEAD OR ALIVE
The Congress of the United States just last Wednesday, March 16, 2000, enacted passed the FAA Reauthorization Bill, including an amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act anxiously awaited by the victims of air crash disasters since the crash of TWA 800 in July 1996.
The Death on the High Seas Act was originally enacted in 1920 to provide a recovery for victims of marine disasters on the High Seas because recoveries for death were limited to the salvage value of the ship. So, as in the example of the Titanic sinking, no salvage value meant no recovery for the victims. Interestingly, the Act allowed for recovery of only pecuniary (economic) losses, not the real value of a human life such as companionship, comfort, guidance, love, affection, grief, and so forth.
It was the courts, not Congress, that extended the application of the Death on the High Seas Act (called DOHSA) to aviation, the rationale being that aviation was beginning to perform a traditional maritime activity, therefore, recoveries for death should be determined under the same law. The result, however, was to have a patchwork of laws applicable to airline flights, one law if the airplane crashed within one marine league from shore (about three nautical miles), and another if the airplane crashed further out to sea (like three and one-half miles). If the flight were an international flight, then another law applied, too, the Warsaw Convention, which back then, but not now, limited recovery to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars with one exception. Even more weird was the way the courts applied Warsaw. If you bought a ticket from Chicago to Philadelphia and your friend bought a ticket from Chicago to Philadelphia to London, and the airplane crashed en-route from Chicago to Philadelphia, there would be no limitation on the amount your family could recover for your death, but the recovery for your friend’s family would be limited to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars because he was on a segment of an international flight. Warsaw only applied to the airline’s liability, however, there was no limit on the recovery against the manufacturer of the airplane. Go figure!
You can imagine the inequities that befell families who lost children on aircraft that crashed more than three miles from shore. Since most families aren’t dependent economically on their young children, the damages recoverable were horrendously low, not only an insult, but worse a further assault on the grief-stricken families. How could one explain to parents that the life of a priceless child was worth so little?
TWA 800, a crash of a Boeing 747 just five miles off Long Island, New York in July 1996 caused critical scrutiny to be brought to bear on DOHSA. There were many children aboard that airplane and the thought of DOHSA’s damages limitations making a mockery of their lives was too much for their families and the politicians who were answerable to them. Even the judge to whom the case was assigned wasn’t about to allow this archaic law to limit recoveries, so he decided that since the airplane crashed only five miles from shore and President Ronald Reagan proclaimed United States territorial waters to extend out twelve miles, the crash could not have occurred on the High Seas, thus DOHSA was inapplicable. That decision was appealed by the airline and the airplane’s manufacturer, and the appeals court decision was pending when the amendments to DOHSA were passed.
So what did Congress do in the face of the crashes of TWA 800 (five miles offshore), Swissair 111 (in Canadian waters), and Egyptair 990 (some sixty miles offshore)? Congress made DOHSA applicable to only some of them! For the crashes more than twelve miles offshore, families can recover pecuniary damages (economic losses), together with non-pecuniary damages, such as loss of care, comfort and companionship. That makes sense and gives some predictability to the recovery, no matter where it happens, as long as it’s more than twelve miles from U.S. shores. On the other hand, if the crash occurs twelve miles or less from shore, the Act now reads that DOHSA does not apply, but "rules applicable under Federal, State, and other appropriate law shall apply." What does that mean?
In short, what Congress has done is leave the decision as to what law applies up to the courts to be decided in each instance. In other words, no predictability whatsoever as to who recovers, how much, and for what items. Having the chance to fix the law, Congress instead punted and guaranteed litigation to answer that question for generations to come. The airlines and manufacturers involved have already served notice that they will contend that Congress making this change retroactive to July 16, 1996 is unconstitutional and, thus, the changes should not apply to either TWA 800 or any crash that occurred before the change in the law. Of course, if the law were more restrictive, instead of less so, that argument would never have seen the light of day!
So what does all this mean? Hopefully, it means that general maritime law supplemented by state wrongful death and survival laws will apply to any crash twelve miles or less from U.S. shores. That means that dependent upon each state’s allowable recovery, damages will vary from crash to crash and maybe from claimant to claimant. In the case of TWA 800, if a court were, for example, to apply New York state’s draconian wrongful death law, the parents of children on that airplane might recover less than they could if the airplane had crashed seven miles further out to sea. A court might find that general maritime law should be supplanted by the state law of the place of domicile of the victim, in which case a larger recovery may be possible. The problem is that this legislation creates, in some instances, more uncertainty than the law it replaced. That’s unfortunate because in this day when even the Warsaw Convention has no limits, the need for DOHSA in airplane crashes is absent.
This change in the law was a product of an election year compromise, and to the extent it arguably allows, in some instances, a predictable full and fair compensation for victims of airline crashes it is better than what preceded it. On the other hand, it would have been more helpful to victims’ families had the change allowed a consistent and well-defined recovery that applied to all airline crashes, regardless of the purely "accidental" location where they impact the water.
ARTHUR ALAN WOLK
March 17, 2000
The Death on the High Seas Act was originally enacted in 1920 to provide a recovery for victims of marine disasters on the High Seas because recoveries for death were limited to the salvage value of the ship. So, as in the example of the Titanic sinking, no salvage value meant no recovery for the victims. Interestingly, the Act allowed for recovery of only pecuniary (economic) losses, not the real value of a human life such as companionship, comfort, guidance, love, affection, grief, and so forth.
It was the courts, not Congress, that extended the application of the Death on the High Seas Act (called DOHSA) to aviation, the rationale being that aviation was beginning to perform a traditional maritime activity, therefore, recoveries for death should be determined under the same law. The result, however, was to have a patchwork of laws applicable to airline flights, one law if the airplane crashed within one marine league from shore (about three nautical miles), and another if the airplane crashed further out to sea (like three and one-half miles). If the flight were an international flight, then another law applied, too, the Warsaw Convention, which back then, but not now, limited recovery to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars with one exception. Even more weird was the way the courts applied Warsaw. If you bought a ticket from Chicago to Philadelphia and your friend bought a ticket from Chicago to Philadelphia to London, and the airplane crashed en-route from Chicago to Philadelphia, there would be no limitation on the amount your family could recover for your death, but the recovery for your friend’s family would be limited to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars because he was on a segment of an international flight. Warsaw only applied to the airline’s liability, however, there was no limit on the recovery against the manufacturer of the airplane. Go figure!
You can imagine the inequities that befell families who lost children on aircraft that crashed more than three miles from shore. Since most families aren’t dependent economically on their young children, the damages recoverable were horrendously low, not only an insult, but worse a further assault on the grief-stricken families. How could one explain to parents that the life of a priceless child was worth so little?
TWA 800, a crash of a Boeing 747 just five miles off Long Island, New York in July 1996 caused critical scrutiny to be brought to bear on DOHSA. There were many children aboard that airplane and the thought of DOHSA’s damages limitations making a mockery of their lives was too much for their families and the politicians who were answerable to them. Even the judge to whom the case was assigned wasn’t about to allow this archaic law to limit recoveries, so he decided that since the airplane crashed only five miles from shore and President Ronald Reagan proclaimed United States territorial waters to extend out twelve miles, the crash could not have occurred on the High Seas, thus DOHSA was inapplicable. That decision was appealed by the airline and the airplane’s manufacturer, and the appeals court decision was pending when the amendments to DOHSA were passed.
So what did Congress do in the face of the crashes of TWA 800 (five miles offshore), Swissair 111 (in Canadian waters), and Egyptair 990 (some sixty miles offshore)? Congress made DOHSA applicable to only some of them! For the crashes more than twelve miles offshore, families can recover pecuniary damages (economic losses), together with non-pecuniary damages, such as loss of care, comfort and companionship. That makes sense and gives some predictability to the recovery, no matter where it happens, as long as it’s more than twelve miles from U.S. shores. On the other hand, if the crash occurs twelve miles or less from shore, the Act now reads that DOHSA does not apply, but "rules applicable under Federal, State, and other appropriate law shall apply." What does that mean?
In short, what Congress has done is leave the decision as to what law applies up to the courts to be decided in each instance. In other words, no predictability whatsoever as to who recovers, how much, and for what items. Having the chance to fix the law, Congress instead punted and guaranteed litigation to answer that question for generations to come. The airlines and manufacturers involved have already served notice that they will contend that Congress making this change retroactive to July 16, 1996 is unconstitutional and, thus, the changes should not apply to either TWA 800 or any crash that occurred before the change in the law. Of course, if the law were more restrictive, instead of less so, that argument would never have seen the light of day!
So what does all this mean? Hopefully, it means that general maritime law supplemented by state wrongful death and survival laws will apply to any crash twelve miles or less from U.S. shores. That means that dependent upon each state’s allowable recovery, damages will vary from crash to crash and maybe from claimant to claimant. In the case of TWA 800, if a court were, for example, to apply New York state’s draconian wrongful death law, the parents of children on that airplane might recover less than they could if the airplane had crashed seven miles further out to sea. A court might find that general maritime law should be supplanted by the state law of the place of domicile of the victim, in which case a larger recovery may be possible. The problem is that this legislation creates, in some instances, more uncertainty than the law it replaced. That’s unfortunate because in this day when even the Warsaw Convention has no limits, the need for DOHSA in airplane crashes is absent.
This change in the law was a product of an election year compromise, and to the extent it arguably allows, in some instances, a predictable full and fair compensation for victims of airline crashes it is better than what preceded it. On the other hand, it would have been more helpful to victims’ families had the change allowed a consistent and well-defined recovery that applied to all airline crashes, regardless of the purely "accidental" location where they impact the water.
ARTHUR ALAN WOLK
March 17, 2000
Wednesday, January 5, 2000
EGYPTAIR 990 - AN EXPLANATION AND HELP
While no definitive answer to the tragedy of Egyptair 990 is yet available, some facts are known, some are still under investigation and some won't be known until legal discovery is commenced.
It is known that the co-pilot was not intended to fly the aircraft for hours into the flight. It is known that for some reason just one-half hour into the flight he came to the cockpit and asked to fly sooner rather than later. It is known that the captain left the cockpit soon after and neglected to ask one of three other pilots to take his place. It is known that all aircraft operational parameters appeared normal at thirty-three thousand feet when, while by himself, the co-pilot apparently disconnected the autopilot and pushed forward on the control yoke, forcing the aircraft into a dive. It is known that the captain returned to the cockpit and asked, "What's going on?" It is known that before and apparently during the sequence the co-pilot recited a prayer, and during the descent the captain asked the co-pilot to pull back together with him to arrest the dive, but while he pulled the co-pilot pushed, resulting in a wild pitch-up and an in-flight breakup of the aircraft.
What is unknown is the "why" of all this. No one can reverse these events. No one can bring back our loved ones. The only task that remains is to heal, to investigate, to learn how this horrible event could have occurred, to prevent its reoccurrence, and to compensate the families, those who live for those who do not.
The investigative system under the NTSB is flawed. While the Egyptian Ambassador to the United States, admittedly with no air crash investigative background, was permitted to hear the cockpit voice recorder, the families will never have that right, as it is precluded by law. Lawyers who represent the families and their experts, however, will likely be afforded that right, but only after a judge in a court of law orders the release of the tape and only with restricted access.
The flight data recorder will be analyzed by the NTSB, which in the past has misread such data, and then it will likely be put into the airplane manufacturerÃs flight simulator, a simulator that has never been programmed to replicate such a violent flight profile of a B-767. In past investigations, the manufacturer has proved deliberately deceptive and misleading to Board investigators, hindering and delaying the early resolution of the accident's probable cause.
But for healing to begin, these questions must be answered now, not years from now. The only way to get them answered is to commence litigation now. The only way the cockpit voice recorder will be released is to commence litigation now. The only way for the flight data recorder information to be released in a timely way is to commence litigation now.
It sounds aggressive to suggest litigation only weeks after the accident took 217 lives, but the litigation following the crash of United 585 in Colorado Springs in 1991 ended in 1998, the litigation following the crash of USAir 427 in Pittsburgh in 1994 continues to this day, as does TWA 800 which crashed in 1996, and American 965 which crashed in Cali, Colombia, as well as many others. Time is on the side of the defense, documents will be "lost", memories will fade, witnesses will disappear, and worse, the official investigation will drone on, dancing to the tune of the political winds of who complains the loudest about its direction and likely outcome. The only voices that are not heard by government are those who cry out for their loved ones.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE LITIGATION IS COMMENCED
Once litigation is commenced, a plaintiffs' steering committee will be formed. That committee will be charged with the task of proving who is liable for the crash. Only when that task commences in earnest will offers of settlement be forthcoming. It is of vital importance that only those lawyers who have the will, the wherewithal and the desire to get into that fight be selected for the steering committee. Too often in the past, lawyers who successfully marketed themselves to grieving families fell far short when it came to getting to the formidable job of working to create risk of an adverse verdict and, therefore, the desire on the part of airlines and the manufacturers of aircraft to settle to settle. Egyptair is a government owned airline. It, therefore, enjoys protections afforded by legislation (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) designed to protect governments from liability. For example, there is no right to a jury trial against Egyptair. There is no right to punitive damages against Egyptair or its employees. Unless the law is changed by the United States Congress (now under consideration), the Death On The High Seas Act will serve to limit damages to only the pecuniary losses suffered by the families of those killed. That Act allows for recovery of only the financial losses directly attributable to the deaths, and not the real measure of life or the loss of it to be recovered. Egyptair must be persuaded to do the right thing and waive the application of these Acts and offer settlements to the grieving families consistent with their losses, not hide behind a patchwork of laws passed to deny compensation for the benefit of those who owe it. It will be the lawyers who accomplish this.
Hopefully the U.S. Congress will do its sworn duty and repeal the Death On The High Seas Act as it relates to aviation accidents. Hopefully the U.S. Congress will avoid the temptation to give into lobbyists and their millions in "contributions" and for once do the right thing for the people, you know the people who elected them.
THE LAWYER YOU CHOOSE WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS YOU MAKE IN YOUR LIFE
Choosing the right lawyer, especially at this horrific time, is a task no one should have to make, but it is so important. You must summon the energy to make the right choice. Here are some important considerations:
There is only one reason to interview The Wolk Law Firm, we do nothing but air crash litigation for plaintiffs. We specialize in a field that is a complex legal science and have for decades. We are pilots. We are scientists. We are lawyers who work. Every defense lawyer involved in aviation litigation and every plaintiffs lawyer in or out of the field respects us. We have settlements and verdicts that are among the largest ever recovered in aviation litigation. We have tried hundreds of cases in virtually every State. We treat every client like they are related. We have no dissatisfied clients, period! If you want to talk to a client, either current or past, that's easy because they are happy to do it for us and for you. If they can help ease your pain, just ask, whether you hire us or not. Every client from every crash over thirty-one years agrees with the way we do our job. If you give us the opportunity to be interviewed you will select The Wolk Law Firm.
WE ARE YOUR LAWYERS FOR YEARS BUT YOUR FRIENDS FOR LIFE!
ARTHUR ALAN WOLK
It is known that the co-pilot was not intended to fly the aircraft for hours into the flight. It is known that for some reason just one-half hour into the flight he came to the cockpit and asked to fly sooner rather than later. It is known that the captain left the cockpit soon after and neglected to ask one of three other pilots to take his place. It is known that all aircraft operational parameters appeared normal at thirty-three thousand feet when, while by himself, the co-pilot apparently disconnected the autopilot and pushed forward on the control yoke, forcing the aircraft into a dive. It is known that the captain returned to the cockpit and asked, "What's going on?" It is known that before and apparently during the sequence the co-pilot recited a prayer, and during the descent the captain asked the co-pilot to pull back together with him to arrest the dive, but while he pulled the co-pilot pushed, resulting in a wild pitch-up and an in-flight breakup of the aircraft.
What is unknown is the "why" of all this. No one can reverse these events. No one can bring back our loved ones. The only task that remains is to heal, to investigate, to learn how this horrible event could have occurred, to prevent its reoccurrence, and to compensate the families, those who live for those who do not.
The investigative system under the NTSB is flawed. While the Egyptian Ambassador to the United States, admittedly with no air crash investigative background, was permitted to hear the cockpit voice recorder, the families will never have that right, as it is precluded by law. Lawyers who represent the families and their experts, however, will likely be afforded that right, but only after a judge in a court of law orders the release of the tape and only with restricted access.
The flight data recorder will be analyzed by the NTSB, which in the past has misread such data, and then it will likely be put into the airplane manufacturerÃs flight simulator, a simulator that has never been programmed to replicate such a violent flight profile of a B-767. In past investigations, the manufacturer has proved deliberately deceptive and misleading to Board investigators, hindering and delaying the early resolution of the accident's probable cause.
But for healing to begin, these questions must be answered now, not years from now. The only way to get them answered is to commence litigation now. The only way the cockpit voice recorder will be released is to commence litigation now. The only way for the flight data recorder information to be released in a timely way is to commence litigation now.
It sounds aggressive to suggest litigation only weeks after the accident took 217 lives, but the litigation following the crash of United 585 in Colorado Springs in 1991 ended in 1998, the litigation following the crash of USAir 427 in Pittsburgh in 1994 continues to this day, as does TWA 800 which crashed in 1996, and American 965 which crashed in Cali, Colombia, as well as many others. Time is on the side of the defense, documents will be "lost", memories will fade, witnesses will disappear, and worse, the official investigation will drone on, dancing to the tune of the political winds of who complains the loudest about its direction and likely outcome. The only voices that are not heard by government are those who cry out for their loved ones.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE LITIGATION IS COMMENCED
Once litigation is commenced, a plaintiffs' steering committee will be formed. That committee will be charged with the task of proving who is liable for the crash. Only when that task commences in earnest will offers of settlement be forthcoming. It is of vital importance that only those lawyers who have the will, the wherewithal and the desire to get into that fight be selected for the steering committee. Too often in the past, lawyers who successfully marketed themselves to grieving families fell far short when it came to getting to the formidable job of working to create risk of an adverse verdict and, therefore, the desire on the part of airlines and the manufacturers of aircraft to settle to settle. Egyptair is a government owned airline. It, therefore, enjoys protections afforded by legislation (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) designed to protect governments from liability. For example, there is no right to a jury trial against Egyptair. There is no right to punitive damages against Egyptair or its employees. Unless the law is changed by the United States Congress (now under consideration), the Death On The High Seas Act will serve to limit damages to only the pecuniary losses suffered by the families of those killed. That Act allows for recovery of only the financial losses directly attributable to the deaths, and not the real measure of life or the loss of it to be recovered. Egyptair must be persuaded to do the right thing and waive the application of these Acts and offer settlements to the grieving families consistent with their losses, not hide behind a patchwork of laws passed to deny compensation for the benefit of those who owe it. It will be the lawyers who accomplish this.
Hopefully the U.S. Congress will do its sworn duty and repeal the Death On The High Seas Act as it relates to aviation accidents. Hopefully the U.S. Congress will avoid the temptation to give into lobbyists and their millions in "contributions" and for once do the right thing for the people, you know the people who elected them.
THE LAWYER YOU CHOOSE WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS YOU MAKE IN YOUR LIFE
Choosing the right lawyer, especially at this horrific time, is a task no one should have to make, but it is so important. You must summon the energy to make the right choice. Here are some important considerations:
- The lawyer you choose must have aviation litigation experience. Without it, he will simply not know the players, procedures, or critical steps necessary to get the process started.
- The lawyer you select must be recognized in the field of air crash litigation and respected by both the plaintiffs' and defense lawyers as competent, skillful and honest. Without respect, nothing your lawyer says or does will advance your cause and get results.
- The lawyer you select should be a pilot who understands the language of aviation and can on his own conceive of and prove his theory of the accident in a court of law. Otherwise, the lawyer is at the mercy of hired experts alone, who often fail to understand the legal objectives of the case.
- The lawyer you select must be willing to work and have demonstrated that in past cases. Doing nothing until the trial date arrives and using the efforts of the lawyers who have done the work will result in those cases being left behind if the case actually goes to trial.
- Cheap is what you get. You want the job done in your lifetime? You want a lawyer to treat your case like he lost his own relative? Don't go for cheap, go for excellence. If a lawyer has fifty cases at a ten or fifteen percent fee, expect to wait until well into the next millennium before your case is resolved. Lawyers who are willing to work need to get paid more than that.
- Interview, interview, interview. Eyeball the lawyer who has your financial future in his hands. Do you like him? Do you respect him? Do you see and feel his concern over your welfare and that of your family? Is there compassion? If not, go elsewhere. Will he give you the name and phone number of a client who will vouch for his credentials, experience and compassion? If not, go elsewhere.
There is only one reason to interview The Wolk Law Firm, we do nothing but air crash litigation for plaintiffs. We specialize in a field that is a complex legal science and have for decades. We are pilots. We are scientists. We are lawyers who work. Every defense lawyer involved in aviation litigation and every plaintiffs lawyer in or out of the field respects us. We have settlements and verdicts that are among the largest ever recovered in aviation litigation. We have tried hundreds of cases in virtually every State. We treat every client like they are related. We have no dissatisfied clients, period! If you want to talk to a client, either current or past, that's easy because they are happy to do it for us and for you. If they can help ease your pain, just ask, whether you hire us or not. Every client from every crash over thirty-one years agrees with the way we do our job. If you give us the opportunity to be interviewed you will select The Wolk Law Firm.
WE ARE YOUR LAWYERS FOR YEARS BUT YOUR FRIENDS FOR LIFE!
ARTHUR ALAN WOLK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)