Do attorneys ignore the NTSB's 45-day rule?
The likely crash of a Malaysia Airlines plane highlights the 45-day rule, which bans early contact between attorneys and victims families.
March 31, 2014 at 04:27 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It is widely known among aviation lawyers that attorneys are supposed to wait 45 days before contacting the families of victims involved in an airline crash in order to solicit them as clients.
The reasoning behind such a rule – passed by Congress in 1996 – is that it allows a family privacy at a very traumatic time. It probably makes sense from a strategic point of view, too. Often, it takes a while for the basic facts of a case to be revealed, such as information from a plane's black box.
But there are those attorneys, eager to get clients, who do not value the rule. The rule, some sources add, may not apply outside of the continental United States. This would be important in the case of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, given most of its passengers are from overseas, especially from China and other parts of Asia.
And even with regards to violating the 45-day rule in the United States, opponents may argue they want to sign up a client quickly in a very competitive (and lucrative) field of legal practice. Plus, they might argue that relatives of passengers have a right and need for legal counsel, before insurance companies and other possible defendants try to settle with them.
In the case of the still-missing Malaysia Airlines' plane, now assumed to have crashed in the Indian Ocean, there was speculation by some attorneys in private practice that the federal government was monitoring whether plaintiff's lawyers were following the 45-day rule.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) could not be reached for immediate comment on Friday. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago said on Friday he would neither confirm nor deny if any investigation was taking place.
Already, one law firm, Ribbeck Law of Chicago, has filed a petition for discovery, preparing the way for a lawsuit in response to the missing Malaysian plane. The firm claims it expects to represent half of the victims' families. It is not clear how they became counsel for them, if they did not contact their relatives. They did specify one relative of a passenger who appears to be a client.
The Christian Science Monitor has reported that William Wang, who works for Ribbeck as Of Counsel, and is licensed to practice in China, “headed for Beijing as soon as he heard that the plane had disappeared,” and “says he has offered his firm's services to the relatives of more than 100 passengers on a 'no win, no fee' contingency basis, and that about 10 have signed up with Ribbeck.”
What is known is that in 2009 Ribbeck's solicitation practices were highlighted in web reports on how they procured clients after a plane crash in Buffalo. “I questioned whether it was violating both New York's 30-day moratorium on contacting victims/families as well as the federal 45-day rule that prohibits solicitation,” according to a recent blog post from New York attorney Eric Turkewitz.
Last year, there were more questions over Ribbeck's solicitation of clients involving the crash of Asiana Flight 214 in San Francisco. The NTSB reported the law firm to the Illinois agency that regulates attorneys in response to questions about its online communications and in-person meetings with passengers on that flight, according to a report from The Associated Press.
In the Asiana crash, the NTSB “received an unspecified number of complaints about solicitations since the July 6 accident that killed three Chinese teenage girls and injured 180,” The AP said.
On Friday, James Grogan, deputy administrator for the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, said there was a pending public disciplinary proceeding against Monica Ribbeck of Ribbeck Law regarding a Turkish Airlines crash. The commission could not confirm or deny if the commission was looking at her for any other incidents.
Grogan did confirm too that the commission would consider federal law when it comes to the solicitation of business by attorneys regarding air or railroad crashes.
Key in this could be the 45-day rule, which is found in 49 U.S.C. 1136 (G)(2), and explains unsolicited communications.
“In the event of an accident involving an air carrier providing interstate or foreign air transportation and in the event of an accident involving a foreign air carrier that occurs within the United States, no unsolicited communication concerning a potential action for personal injury or wrongful death may be made by an attorney (including any associate, agent, employee, or other representative of an attorney) or any potential party to the litigation to an individual injured in the accident, or to a relative of an individual involved in the accident, before the 45th day following the date of the accident.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250