Legal, Consulting Bills Top $13 Million

[BoeingBoy]

From the CLT paper.....

Posted on Wed, Feb. 16, 2005

US AIRWAYS

FLYING STANDBY | Legal, consulting bills top $13 million

An occasional feature on US Airways as the airline strives to survive.

US Airways' lawyers and consultants are seeking $13.2 million in reimbursements in connection with their work in the first three-and-a-half months of the airline's bankruptcy case.The bills, contained in bankruptcy court filings this week, cover work between the airline's Sept. 12 bankruptcy filing and Dec. 31. About half of the charges come from the airline's three law firms, and the rest from six consultants on issues such as financial restructuring, taxes and appraisals.

A hearing on the fees is scheduled for March 24. -- TONY MECIA

Jim

 

[local 12 proud]

I knew my father was right when he said "son theres no money in aviation" GO BE A LAWYER OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES!

 

[MCI transplant]

I knew my father was right when he said "son theres no money in aviation" GO BE A LAWYER OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES!

[post="248246"][/post]​

:huh: Ain't that the truth!!!!!

 

[fr8tmastr]

Gee, I wonder why they dont hire a firm from India or Pakistan perhaps. After all management believes it is the same quality work at a much reduced rate. I think these lying cheats should practice what they preach.

 

[ITRADE]

Cause you have to have attorneys admitted in the state where they practice. Don't think many Paki attorneys are admitted in Virginia or before the Eastern District Bankruptcy court.

Then again, given the less than ferocious opposition posed by the counsel for the work groups, perhaps an Indian attorney would work. Maybe the unions got Indian representation.

Sorry, try again.

 

[700UW]

Interesting, if you look numerous of the lawyers in the case are not practicing lawyers in VA and they get approval from the judge to appear in the case as long as they work with a firm in the state.

 

[Smartest Loser]

Oh...the IAM had legal counsel in the courtroom...???

Thats the first I've heard of that...!!

SL

 

[700UW]

Sharon Levine, David Neigus and Dan King.

 

[delldude]

wait until they get the bill for severance.....

 

[BoeingBoy]

700,

It's called a strong union. Though ITRADE might disagree with that label, that's in reality what it is.

Suppose the IAM pretty much controlled who could work on airplanes, what licensing standards they had to meet, where they could work, etc. That's dealing from a position of strength.

Jim

 

[aafsc]

Cause you have to have attorneys admitted in the state where they practice. Don't think many Paki attorneys are admitted in Virginia or before the Eastern District Bankruptcy court.

Then again, given the less than ferocious opposition posed by the counsel for the work groups, perhaps an Indian attorney would work. Maybe the unions got Indian representation.

Sorry, try again.

[post="248269"][/post]​

Why do you have to have attorneys admitted in the state in which they practice? It seems as though those who make these laws (the lawyers) create these laws to prevent THEIR jobs from being outsourced to India, China, or wherever. What an Indian, Chinese, etc. law firm could do is send their lawyers to the United States to go to law school and then practice in the various states in order to significantly "lower the bar" with respect to attorney compensation.

 

[ITRADE]

Interesting, if you look numerous of the lawyers in the case are not practicing lawyers in VA and they get approval from the judge to appear in the case as long as they work with a firm in the state.

[post="248274"][/post]​

Right, and pro hac appearances are predicated upon the bar licensure in another U.S. state.

Back to square one.

 

[700UW]

Jim,

It is begining to hit the law field too, check out this article:

States Pressured to Admit Foreign Lawyers

 

[FWAAA]

Why do you have to have attorneys admitted in the state in which they practice? It seems as though those who make these laws (the lawyers) create these laws to prevent THEIR jobs from being outsourced to India, China, or wherever. What an Indian, Chinese, etc. law firm could do is send their lawyers to the United States to go to law school and then practice in the various states in order to significantly "lower the bar" with respect to attorney compensation.

[post="248283"][/post]​

Yes, lawyers have successfully defended their turf against foreign competition (even from other states in the USA).

But your proposed solution assumes that the foreign lawyers could get US Immigration approval to move here to work - since lawyers here are dime a dozen, I doubt any Chinese, Indian, Pakistan or other foreigners could make the case that they are filling an unfilled job. They wouldn't get the work visa. Nice try, though.

 

[ITRADE]

Why do you have to have attorneys admitted in the state in which they practice?  It seems as though those who make these laws (the lawyers) create these laws to prevent THEIR jobs from being outsourced to India, China, or wherever. What an Indian, Chinese, etc. law firm could do is send their lawyers to the United States to go to law school and then practice in the various states in order to significantly "lower the bar" with respect to attorney compensation.

[post="248283"][/post]​

Cause the state bars and courts don't want attorneys who are not knowledgeable in the law of a particular state to be imparting legal advice for jurisdictions for which they are not really familiar.

A California licensed lawyer will not know very much about Virginia commonwealth law, and for a client to rely upon the advice of a California lawyer concerning issues of Virginia law would likely result in either the improper interpretation of Virginia law or a deficiency in following Virginia procedural rules. And, courts are not into giving second chances for procedural deficiencies in filings.

There is also the issue that state bar associations don't like attorneys from other states practicing law on the home "turf". It 1) reduces the ability of the state bar to limit who practices law in the state and 2) reduces the ability for the state bar to sanction the attorney for ethical or professional violations.