A: i got into aviation in a serendipitous way a long term in the past—likely the late ‘60s. My wife on the time stated there has been this domestic display she’d been wanting to visit, and who turned into i to say no? But she got it wrong; it became an aviation show. And that i didn’t understand that the little fishbowl that stated, “placed your business card in, win a drawing for free flying classes,” that everybody in there might get a unfastened lesson. That’s how they get new college students. And that’s how i got began. Q: what have been your initial feelings once you purchased flying? A: i idea it became a hell of loads of fun. So it sparked an hobby in now not handiest the pleasure of being a pilot but also within the complete belief of, “how does this paintings? Why ought to heavy machines move thru the air with the finest of ease?” q: whilst did you get your pilot’s license? A: around 1980. A long time. Juggling family and exercise i found it difficult to get a sustained run at it. But i ultimately simply said the heck with this and i took a week off and i went right down to panama metropolis and stated, “good enough, men, permit’s end this up.” q: and the way did you get into aviation regulation? A: i think my first aviation case turned into the pacific southwest airlines crash [in 1968]; it became a referral by way of different legal professionals. Then i went to usc and that i took the direction in aviation accident regulation so i ought to get a more impregnable background in the distinctions. That turned into the early grounding i got. Q: what percent of your practice is aviation regulation? A: these days, probably 50 to 60 percent. Q: continually plaintiffs or do you constitute airlines? A: continually plaintiffs. Usually. There was a time after i had a wellknown practice and i would guard instances here and there. One time i used to be asked by a attorney’s mutual insurance organisation to protect a few attorneys and i did that. But within the subject of aviation i will say with out contradiction that it’s completely plaintiff. Q: take us via a case of yours. A: good enough. Permit’s take a case that has oddity, interest and drama. Q: all good things. A: that would be benjamins v. British european airways. The crash changed into in 1972, as i remember. A legal professional i knew mentioned me the instances of some of the passengers. Q: every other referral. A: in the ones days, it was an awful lot more common that your practice trusted attorney referrals, instead of advertising and what’s going on today. Anyway this become a flight on an airline that is now defunct called british european airways. The jet plane, the trident jet, became manufactured in england. It become a 2d-technology passenger plane, and hawker siddeley was the manufacturer. The airplane flew exclusively in europe and africa and never inside the america. My passengers had been dutch residents. So of course we filed suit in brooklyn. Q: [laughs] why brooklyn? A: to understand that, we again up. At the time, this turned into the sector’s worst air crash: about 123 deaths. And the british investigating corporation, known as the “air accidents branch,” convened a court docket of inquiry in london. I implemented to take part in that, and i retained the services of a fellow with the aid of the name of p. T. Tweedy who had been past head of the air injuries department. I stated, “captain tweedy”—he have been in bomber command at some stage in the second international struggle—“captain tweedy, your job is to help me be an actual player on this main aviation twist of fate, a hard and fast of hearings that’s arising in london.” so on the primary day of the hearings, i met p. T. Tweedy, who informed me of his regrets that he became unable to get me in. “however in any case, chap, you know, you may sit down through and you may listen the whole lot.” i used to be no longer a satisfied guy. However the hearings commenced and the crown, the prosecutor, put on this instead staggering starting announcement, whitewashing the complete case fantastically from the perspective of the manufacturer. One of the first-class i’ve ever heard. At the conclusion of it, the lord chancellor banged his gavel and said, “the following order of enterprise is the utility of ronald goldman to take part in these court cases.” and i leaped to my ft. This, via the way, turned into in a ballroom at the piccadilly hotel, in which all of the foremost queen’s counsel—silks if you'll—have been participating. That they had these lengthy tables with small armies of solicitors and massive piles of documents and filing cabinets. None of which i had. So i’m within the again of the ballroom, probable 50 yards from the front, and he says, “nation your utility,” and that i don’t have a microphone or whatever. And that i’ve by no means been requested to state an application. You fill them in. Who states one? I did my first-rate and at the conclusion he bangs his gavel and says, “very well, take your leave.” i stated, “tweedy, what befell?” he stated, “you’re in! You’re in!” so that they stopped the complaints, added out a protracted desk, covered it in blue velvet like all and sundry else, put up two microphones, delivered out a ton of exhibits and bundles, piled them on my table, and there was tweedy and i sitting there by ourselves. We have been given 1/3 in the pass-exam batting order. That’s how i got into the heart of the case. Q: and brooklyn? A: the motive we sued in brooklyn turned into because that became the simplest region in the u. S. Wherein hawker siddeley had an workplace. Despite the fact that they didn’t build some thing inside the usa, even though [my clients] have been dutch passengers, we were given jurisdiction beneath the warsaw convention. As it seems, the choose, decide weinstein in ny, brushed off the case for need of jurisdiction. I took the case up to the 2d circuit court docket of appeals in big apple and they reversed him, overturning 20 years’ really worth of regulation and reinstated my case. The case has every element that an academic, a practitioner and a novelist might want to peer in a case. The on the spot reason of the crash changed into the untimely retraction of the leading part—we name them flaps, they call them droops. They were at about 1,seven-hundred toes altitude, and the minute those flaps started out to retract the plane went right into a deep stall. What the pilots experienced was a direct three hundred-pound pressure of ram at the manipulate column—the stick if you may—pushing the nostril down. At 1,700 ft that’s a scary prospect. The pilots concept the system became misbehaving due to the fact the stick-shake stall caution, now not the stick push, had a infamous reputation of fake alarm. However they didn’t recognise that it become scientifically impossible for it to have a false stick push. So after they overrode the first one, they checked out the panel and the whole lot regarded ordinary. Then they got the second stick push, so that they pulled out the circuit breakers to make the entirety inoperative, and that’s the factor at which they have been doomed. There were other issues. The captain was notorious for being a mean, nasty, difficult-to-work-with, bitter old bomber captain himself. This become a rainy sunday night flight in which they roused him off the bed. He turned into paired with two beginners, one in every of whom changed into sincerely terrified of this captain. The captain became so notoriously disliked that we located within the wreckage … in those days the 1/3 pilot sat behind the captain and the primary officer, and those seats had, like in faculty, this timber table that’s attached to the seat; and carved into it became graffiti approximately this captain. Q: and the desk survived the crash? A: the table survived and became one of the centerpieces of our litigation. Q: how did you locate this facts about the captain? A: partially it become found out at some point of the interviews that the air coincidence branch made in london. And we were given very strong facts that caused in addition discovery on the ones issues when we got into litigation. Hawker siddeley had failed with its first generation jet referred to as the comet, which additionally crashed in its preliminary carrier, and that they knew that this will be the end of the road for them. And indeed it became. They have been the early pioneers, however due to the fact they made two jets that crashed early, they misplaced the derby. And they knew that turned into the hassle. They made large efforts, and the [british] authorities changed into very inquisitive about helping to easy them up. So we knew we were fighting that as properly. As is so regularly in instances like this, if you have passengers on a warsaw price tag. If you’re on the warsaw price tag—now montreal—your rights are not as expansive as if you’re no longer. Q: warsaw price ticket? A: when you’re travelling across the world, your rights as a passenger are ruled through global treaty, which used to be the warsaw convention. It’s now referred to as the montreal convention. The convention, curiously, is built by way of those who assume in terms of agreement regulation, not in terms of tort regulation. So what became most vital underneath each treaties is the contract of carriage. And that means the ticket. Where you got the price tag will become a place in which you may sue. Where the final destination is, due to the fact that’s part of the settlement, is a place in which you can sue. Where the home workplace of the airline is will become a place wherein you may sue. Q: and which do you choose to be ruled below? A: nearly constantly, you choose now not to be governed through [montreal]. In simple terms emotional misery claims aren't compensable underneath montreal. In case you’re in a crash and it scares the hell out of you however you didn’t have a bodily harm, too bad. Even if you have submit-worrying stress ailment and go through for the rest of your existence. Q: how did the bea case flip out? A: judge weinstein is a very smart man and he’s an exquisite judge. In reality, he wrote the federal treatise, the primary one, on the rules of proof. He told me on the time he disregarded the case, “you know, i suppose i accept as true with your arguments, [but] i’m going to follow the regulation. And also you’ll likely reverse and get them returned.” i did and he came back and says, “see? I told you.” the case settled on the primary day of trial. Q: with the manufacturer? A: and british ecu airways. Q: do you pilot lots yourself? A: not anymore. I used to fly up and down california if i used to be going to take depositions and make court docket appearances and so forth. So i did loads of that for approximately twenty years. Then i tapered down and that i haven’t truely flown inside the previous couple of years. The trouble is if you don’t fly lots, you shouldn’t fly at all. Q: due to the fact ... ? A: due to the fact you lose your competencies. It’s like something. Your sharpness may be off a chunk. And that i examine lots approximately air crashes; i don’t want to be a statistic. Q: while you have been flying, did you reflect onconsideration on your cases? About turning into a statistic? A: simplest on this experience: i assume it made me a more secure pilot. I sincerely believed in stuff just like the checklists, thorough preflights, strict adherence to the guidelines and the protection of your machines. I didn’t take any of that with no consideration. Q: as an lawyer, do you go to crash web sites often? A: [not often.] it’s on a want-to-recognize foundation. But i attend the inspections that we do. I paintings with our accident reconstruction experts, i work with our metallurgists; i work with our pilot experts. We are very meticulous in putting collectively the facts in how the aircraft crashed and to uncover the causes. Q: is that the important thing question in every case? What’s the cause of this crash? A: there are two key questions. One is: what precipitated the device to crash? It may be some thing from pilot mistakes to gadget malfunction. The second query is: why was the individual injured or killed? One ought to no longer count on that without a doubt due to the fact there is a crash any person have to be catastrophically injured or killed. So you need to ask, how did this man or woman acquire the damage the character received? And why was it catastrophic? Q: you have been born in big apple. How did you wind up in california? A: as a younger boy i had asthma. This was inside the early nineteen forties and the effects of the despair and the advent of the second one international war were very lots pressing on my own family. They had no money to talk of. The medical doctors stated to them, “if you need to cure this boy’s asthma, move to california.” so when i was 6, we took the chair-automobile educate, visiting third class, out to california. My memory is of infantrymen and plenty of [cigarette] smoke. Q: in all likelihood not desirable for your bronchial asthma. A: it was no longer proper for my asthma at all. I remember at each forestall i'd be taken out of doors so i could breathe. However it become 1943 so the whole lot was approximately the war. My uncles [and my father] were all drafted. I have distinct memories of paper drives, can drives. Mother worked. She became a secretary at rko [pictures]. Q: did you get to head on set? A: i've the distinction of being one of the few folks who can say that i met tarzan’s chimpanzee cheetah and turned into bitten. You’re a 6-year-vintage youngster, you reach out to puppy a large chimpanzee, he’ll come up with a nip. Q: did california help along with your bronchial asthma? A: i've never drawn an asthmatic breath for the reason that day i were given to california. My parents discovered an area inside the san fernando valley, which at that point was rural. It turned into the u . S . A . And i cherished it. At that time l. A. River changed into surely a river. It genuinely had fish in it. Q: what led you to the law? A: ever due to the fact that i will take into account, if i had a ardour, it was how i ought to dedicate my lifestyles to assisting individuals who can’t help themselves. Probable approximately the time i used to be on the point of graduate excessive college i notion, “you know, a way to do that might be as a legal professional.” even as in law faculty, i was set up to clerk for a company [jones & weldon] that turned into very closely tied to a number of the main civil tort lawyers of the day, which include melvin belli. So i got to understand melvin belli. The primary full-size trial i was in, i used to be 2nd chair to melvin belli. Q: any tales? A: melvin belli become an arrogant, extraordinary, bombastic bore who was one of the best trial legal professionals who ever lived. His ego became boundless, his egocentricism become constant. If it didn’t revolve around him and his targets, forget approximately it. One vignette. Danny jones [of jones & weldon] turned into a real tight pal with belli, and i’m in the office sooner or later and he receives a name from melvin belli, who says, “danny, i’m in london shopping for a rolls-royce, however i'm able to’t make payroll up in my san francisco workplace. Could you cowl it for me?” danny said adequate. And he covered his payroll. I remember the fact that while his canine caesar died he called me and stated, “i want to document a lawsuit towards the veterinarian for malpractice.” so i represented melvin belli in his wrongful loss of life canine case. They paid us a few bucks. At the time, the regulation considered dogs as assets, and it was the price of the property. It become malpractice, by means of the manner. He become proper. Q: how become he as a patron? A: lousy. Stressful. I represented him in any other case over a publishing issue, which was a bit more severe. We resolved that case as nicely. He became now not irrational, he become just demanding. But great. He knew the regulation. And the processes. I discovered loads from him. I honestly started out my practice in compton. I assume every attorney who wants to constitute victims ought to start in a place like that because that’s in which you discover ways to be a avenue fighter. The teachers are exciting but you’ve surely were given to learn how to positioned up your dukes and move into the courtroom. Q: when did you return to baum, hedlund, aristei & goldman? A: i had clients at the  southwest airlines crash in burbank and we have been having depositions proper and left. The attorney who deposed the captain, he become 4 or 5 hours analyzing this pilot, and on the wreck i stated, “you realize, i’m a sole practitioner. I'm able to’t spend days doing this. Deliver me an hour and allow me ask my questions and i’ll depart the relaxation to you.” he and the alternative legal professionals agreed. And in that hour i did what needed to be carried out to get the whole lot you had to get. One of the attorneys there has been clark aristei, and as we proceeded with the case we have become friends. I pretty much took the spearhead in agreement negotiations, and a few months after that clark called me and said, “why don’t you return over and meet my companions?” we had a chat and they stated, “properly, why don’t you be a part of our jolly band? And that i stated, “sounds like it might be amusing.” q: had you been a solo practitioner this complete time? A: i had gone thru iterations with different legal professionals working towards with me but it was constantly my firm. But i was absolutely by myself at that time. They said, “while do you want to start?” i said, “while do you need me?” they said, “how approximately monday?” and that i stated, “adequate.” we had the handshake deal, which is ideal enough for me and for them. That is an area that stocks my varieties of values of placing the customers first, of ensuring that we exercise with integrity and with the know-how that we’re right here to propose for safety, for health and for folks who can't always fend for themselves. We put lives lower back together. We help humans in order that the rest in their lives may be managed, notwithstanding the disaster that’s came about. We’re now not the richest lawyers in the world, however we positive have quite a few pride. Q: congratulations, through the manner, on 50 years of exercise. A: thank you. It’s a milestone you achieve through living. Q: past generation, what’s the massive alternate you’ve seen in the exercise of regulation for the duration of this time? A: nastiness. Win at all prices. Willingness to misdirect if now not truely deceive. Even misleading judges. Within the ‘60s, ‘70s or even the ‘80s, a lawyer’s word become his bond. If word got out which you’d reneged on an oral deal, your call changed into mud. Nowadays? It’s a much nastier environment. Litigation is a ways more complex and there’s this scorched earth philosophy. It doesn’t remember what’s going on, you make the litigation as miserable as you may. I suppose the regulation suffers for it. I suppose the career suffers for it. Q: earlier you mentioned how back inside the day you’d get instances via suggestions from different legal professionals and now it’s thru advertising and marketing. Is that why the exchange? Back then, you wished the honour of your fellow legal professionals to get work. A: that’s surely right. Take the asiana crash. There’s a gaggle of lawyers crawling out of all sorts of nooks and crannies that the aviation industry’s in no way heard of earlier than. They run advertisements and make claims. They poach websites. On the time of the buffalo air crash, we had our website poached. Ethics are some thing i care approximately deeply. I used to tell my college students, i’m now not a lot involved about graduating or passing a person who’s a silly lawyer. We’ll get that culled out within the regular route of activities. What i worry about are the folks who is probably ethically challenged or lazy. I’m not so positive we understand the way to identify you.