Bloomberg Law’s Leading Law Firms recognition highlights firms that demonstrate exceptional performance across key measures of success, including financial strength, talent, growth, and innovation. The distinction reflects a firm’s ability to deliver outstanding client service while adapting to the evolving legal and business landscape.

“We are honored for GreatLaw to be recognized by Bloomberg Law as one of its Leading Law Firms for 2026,” said Barry McFadden, Co-Managing Partner of McFadden Trachtenberg PLLC. “We are incredibly grateful to our clients, colleagues, and team members who have supported us throughout our 10 year journey as a firm.”

Founded in 2016, McFadden Trachtenberg has built a reputation for delivering sophisticated legal services with the responsiveness and efficiency clients expect from a modern law firm. The firm’s attorneys advise businesses, governmental entities, contractors, entrepreneurs, investors, financial institutions, politicians, and individuals on a wide range of matters, including corporate transactions, commercial litigation, government and public law, commercial real estate, construction, golf course industry, lending and financial services, energy, aviation and employment law.

The firm’s inclusion on Bloomberg Law’s Leading Law Firms 2026 list follows a period of continued growth and expansion, reflecting GreatLaw’s ongoing investment in talent, technology, and client service initiatives.

“It’s incredibly fulfilling to be acknowledged for the hard work our team puts into every matter, for every client,” said Brian Trachtenberg, Co-Managing Partner of McFadden Trachtenberg PLLC. “This is what happens when a great group of people likes what they do, likes doing it together, and likes who we do it for every day.”

As McFadden Trachtenberg celebrates its tenth year in practice, the firm remains committed to delivering practical and innovative legal solutions to clients for many years to come.

It was revealed that Boeing had notice in 2002 that components were failing and destroying the critical structural lugs that attach the engines to the wings of MD-11’s. While Boeing eventually issued benign “Service Letters” acknowledging that bearing race fractures had been found in service, its operational safety process classified the issue as “not a safety of flight condition” and omitted that, in four of the five known failures, the damage was severe enough to require full structural bulkhead replacements.

For the next two decades, warning signs regarding the MD-11’s defective pylon bearings were downplayed or even ignored. Meanwhile, the FAA’s Service Difficulty Report database was dysfunctional and effectively blind to safety trends, and Boeing treated repeated structural failures as little more than additional data points. This resulted in a dangerous “fly to failure” loop that persisted for years.

A 2007 Boeing presentation confirmed that the failure could cause the loss of a load path between the wing and the engine pylon, and a report of an actual crack in the lug that same year was never even included in the safety analysis. This was before Boeing redesigned an optional bearing to eliminate the defect, turning a known fix for a deadly defect into a mere suggestion. Boeing also created an inspection task intended to catch the migrating bearing before it could destroy the lugs, but never actually built it into the maintenance program with a required interval.

As the public was previously made aware by the NTSB, an engine and pylon tearing away from this family of aircraft during takeoff occurred once before, on a DC-10 in 1979. After that disaster, the NTSB asked the FAA to fix the very reporting system that failed again here. The FAA closed that recommendation as “unacceptable” and called it an economic burden. Forty-six years later, the same family of aircraft and the same kind of failure took fifteen more lives. We refuse to let that warning be ignored a third time.

UPS and FedEx were advised 15 years ago that the redesigned bearing was available and would eliminate the risks posed by components that had failed on multiple aircraft. FedEx followed this guidance to retrofit its fleet with the redesigned bearing. UPS engineering did not.

“It’s unfortunate and disappointing that our hometown, Big Brown, has fallen so far behind FedEx in prioritizing aircraft safety. Hundreds of these planes tower over us every day and night. Thousands of hero pilots from this community fly them. They deserve better,” said Sam Aguiar.

The public learned more about the operations of UPS’s maintenance contractor, ST Engineering, which housed the aircraft for servicing from September through October 18, 2025. The crew, most of whom lacked certifications, failed to identify a bearing already cracked across roughly 75% of its surface. UPS’s own audit of the contractor, completed just ten days before the crash, found outdated maintenance manuals in use and parts signed off as “serviceable” despite visible defects. When a lead mechanic was asked whether he had checked the references he was certifying, the response was, “Do I check every reference? To be honest, no.” A mechanic asked about a required engine support tool, testified, “Sir, I don’t even know what it looks like.” In fact, only four of the twenty technicians on the line held FAA mechanic certificates, and a contracted technician’s quality-control audit could take as little as three to fifteen minutes and never involve even looking at the plane. Even after learning this, UPS allowed the subject aircraft, which had just been at this facility for a month and a half, to remain in service without requiring a more thorough inspection by compliant personnel.

The hearing also exposed gaps that the parties could not explain. Witnesses for UPS and ST Engineering contractor repeatedly told NTSB investigators that they did not have the requested records. Boeing’s representative testified that he was not aware of Boeing’s own 2008 written instruction requiring that a separated bearing component be removed and replaced prior to further flight. The NTSB sent every party home with homework to produce data they should have brought on day one, underscoring the attitudes of the corporations, even after 15 lives were lost.

“Fifteen lives were stolen because corporate and regulatory entities viewed routine maintenance as too burdensome and expensive,” said Sam Aguiar. “What we saw this week included manufacturing deceit, regulatory blindness, sloppy maintenance, and corporate complacency. At the end of the day, we will not allow any of these entities to hide behind one another’s blame. Every one of them had a chance to stop this, and every one of them will be held fully accountable,” said Sam Aguiar.

The NTSB has not yet issued its final report, and its investigation continues; parties have until June 19, 2026, to file proposed findings. 

In a statement from the firm, they said our firm will not stop until this culture of concealment is dismantled and every responsible party answers for the lives shattered on November 4. Our community and these grieving families deserve systemic change to prevent a recurrence, and that is exactly what we will work to deliver.

Facts and quoted testimony in this statement are drawn from the National Transportation Safety Board public docket for the UPS Flight 2976 investigation, accident number DCA26MA024, available at ntsb.gov. An NTSB investigative hearing is a fact-finding proceeding; the NTSB has not issued a final report or probable cause finding in this matter. Attorney Advertising. This is an advertisement. Allegations in pending litigation are not findings of liability and remain to be proven. Past results do not guarantee or predict outcomes in any future case. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

CHICAGO, IL– A new safety report released today by The Kryder Law Group, LLC Accident and Injury Lawyers highlights a significant disparity in training standards between private pilots and commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders across the Midwest. The analysis suggests that the less rigorous training requirements for private pilots are a major contributing factor to the high accident rate in general aviation compared to the commercial trucking industry.

The report compares federal and state-level requirements in ten Midwestern states, including Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The findings indicate that while CDL drivers must undergo extensive, structured training programs often exceeding 160 hours to operate semi-trucks, private pilots can legally carry passengers with a minimum of just 40 hours of flight time.

• Private Pilot: ~40 flight hours minimum total training time.
• CDL Driver: ~160+ hours typical training program.
• New Teen Driver Training: ~50+ hours in most Midwestern states.

This comprehensive analysis connects the high number of general aviation accidents to pilot inexperience. While commercial trucking regulations have evolved to demand rigorous classroom instruction and mandatory behind-the-wheel hours, private pilot certification remains accessible with significantly less preparation. The report argues that this gap in training standards leaves many private pilots ill-equipped to handle complex situations in the air, leading to preventable accidents.

“When you look at the numbers, it is clear that we demand more from the drivers next to us on the highway than we do from the pilots flying private planes overhead,” said Andrew Kryder, Esq., founding partner of The Kryder Law Group, LLC. “Our goal with this report is to show that safety outcomes are directly linked to the quality and duration of training. Raising the bar for pilot certification could save lives and prevent devastating accidents for families across the Midwest.”

The full report is available for review, offering detailed state-by-state comparisons and insights into how improved training standards can enhance safety for everyone.

Publication: Safety Report: Private Pilot vs. CDL Training Standards

Use-tax assessments can impose significant costs on aircraft owners and operators. These taxes often apply when aircraft are purchased or brought into Florida, with the state scrutinizing factors like how and where the aircraft is used. Without proper documentation or legal advocacy, owners may face steep assessments, even if they’ve already paid taxes elsewhere.

“This result reflects the depth of our aviation tax knowledge and our unwavering commitment to protecting aircraft owners, charter operators, and maintenance organizations from costly state tax audits,” said Jonathan A. Ewing, Esq., Board Certified Aviation Attorney and Managing Partner of Aero Law Center. “Achieving a $0 reassessment from an initial exposure of more than half a million dollars underscores the caliber of advocacy and precision our clients can expect from Aero Law Center.”

In this case, Aero Law Center’s team, led by Herman, applied a proven audit strategy to achieve the favorable result by carefully reviewing the client’s tax positions, crafting precise legal arguments, and negotiating effectively with state auditors.

This outcome reflects the firm’s aviation-specific tax expertise, addressing the unique challenges of aircraft use and transaction audits that require specialized knowledge of both state tax regulations and the aviation industry. For operators, charter companies, and maintenance organizations, the result demonstrates how tailored legal counsel not only protects significant capital investments but also ensures smooth operational and regulatory compliance.

The lawsuit, representing a nationwide class of Southwest flight attendants, contends that the airline’s policy of assessing disciplinary points for attendance violations violates FMLA provisions. The policy, the plaintiffs claim, effectively punishes employees by removing key benefits when they take leave, leading to terminations upon accumulating 12 points. These benefits include point-reduction incentives for good attendance, which are crucial for avoiding disciplinary action.

According to court documents, the crux of the plaintiffs’ argument is that Southwest’s policy is not merely a permissible “freeze” of benefits during leave but a flat-out penalty that contravenes the FMLA’s protective statutes. The airline’s attendance policy disqualifies flight attendants from earning up to four point-reduction benefits if they take FMLA leave, a practice the plaintiffs argue poses a substantial deterrent against exercising legally protected leave.

Attorney Jason Erlich, representing the plaintiffs, stated, “Southwest’s policy forces employees into an untenable choice between taking necessary medical leave and maintaining their employment benefits, effectively undermining the very purpose of the FMLA.”

The motion for summary judgment specifically seeks to establish liability against Southwest for interference under both the FMLA and the California Family Rights Act, citing that the policy discriminates against a subclass of California-based flight attendants. The plaintiffs argue that the undisputed evidence reveals systemic violations by Southwest, which conceded in depositions that a single day of leave could lead to an employee’s ineligibility for point reductions for an entire business quarter.

Southwest Airlines has yet to publicly respond to the motion. The airline had previously characterized the policy as a protective “freeze,” but the plaintiffs argue that this characterization is misleading. The court will review the matter to determine whether Southwest’s conduct constitutes a breach of federal and state leave statutes.

As this legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have significant implications for employment practices across the airline industry, spotlighting the tension between corporate attendance policies and federal leave protections. The case continues to unfold as both parties prepare for the upcoming court date.

CASE INFORMATION

District Court, N.D. California
Refuerzo v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC

SAN JOSE, CA – When Sanjiv N. Singh, JD, MD was first contacted in 2022 by Jesus’ Plasencia’s family about his devastating stroke aboard an American Airlines flight, Singh immediately believed the airline had failed its passengers.  But American Airlines’ attorneys began dismissing the case from the moment they first spoke with Singh. They ultimately pontificated on the Montreal Convention, claimed it was the passenger’s responsibility to have deplaned, and dismissed the medicine behind the horrible outcome as inevitable and beyond their control. Any doctor listening to their explanation would have scratched their head—but that was the problem. “American Airlines lawyers were brushing it off,” Singh recalls.  One of the few aviation and catastrophic loss attorneys in the country with a medical degree and extensive clinical experience (including working on the front lines of an emergency room during the outbreak of the 2020 COVID pandemic), Singh saw what others missed. Three years later, his unwavering belief in the case set the stage for the groundbreaking $9.6 million verdict that will be a landmark for passenger safety and passenger rights.

“American’s attorneys were quite smug from the outset,” Singh explains. “But when I heard the family’s story, my medical training and litigator instincts immediately told me this wasn’t just a tragic medical event—this was a case about a number of egregious failures by the airline, each representing a distinct legal opportunity under international law.”

The Attorney With an MD Who Saw the Breakthrough

Singh’s unique background with a JD/MD and 28 years as a practicing attorney positioned him to recognize the value of the case and develop it. As one of the earliest attorneys to sue Boeing for the 737 Max crashes and co-lead counsel who settled 57 claims against Boeing for the Lion Air Flight JT610 crash—work featured prominently in the bestselling book Flying Blind—Singh has become one of the nation’s prominent aviation safety advocates.

But it was his medical degree that unlocked the Plasencia case.

“The moment I understood the timeline—the initial TIA or transient ischemic attack at the gate, followed by the major stroke during flight—I knew we had something profound and shocking,” Singh recalls. “After I deposed the pilot and got him to make some critical admissions about events that occurred 1.5 hours into the flight, we knew it wasn’t one instance of misconduct, but in fact two separate instances—one at the gate and one inflight. There were two separate opportunities for American Airlines to save Mr. Plasencia from being 24/7 nursing-care dependent, and they failed both times.”

After personally deposing the pilot in the case, Singh identified that in fact there were likely two so called “accidents” under the Montreal Convention:  the airline’s failure to properly respond to the transient ischemic attack while still at the Miami gate, and their subsequent failure to divert the transatlantic flight to numerous possible destinations with a stroke center when Plasencia suffered a major stroke.

Putting Together A Dream Team

From the outset, Singh suspected American would be reluctant to settle given what was at stake.  “American Airlines has grown accustomed to stretching the boundaries for evading passenger rights claims,” Singh explains, adding, “My experience taking on mega corporations told me we needed an outstanding trial team, so I reached out to Burns Charest in Texas whom I knew through my recent work on the criminal aspects of the Boeing case. I knew the American Airlines case could be transformative if we executed it properly, and a rockstar team was essential.”

The strategic partnership proved extraordinary. Singh worked in collaboration with Burns Charest from 2023 through trial, working alongside Burns Charest’s exceptional trial attorneys Darren Nicholson, a Burns Charest partner, and Hannah Crowe. During trial, Mr. Nicholson summed up American’s conduct in closing: “Personal responsibility, personal responsibility, personal responsibility. How many times did we hear that? Did you hear one word about corporate responsibility? Doesn’t responsibility go both ways? What you’ve just seen is company policy. This is how this company operates. Never admit you are wrong, never admit liability, don’t you dare put it in writing.” (Quoted verbatim from Mr. Nicholson’s closing argument.)

The Landmark Verdict

On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, after a rapid, witness packed 6 day trial, a San Jose federal jury found American Airlines violated Montreal Convention obligations by:

• Failing to consult medical personnel after observing stroke symptoms at the gate;
• Clearing the passenger for takeoff despite clear neurological warning signs;
• Refusing to divert the eight-hour transatlantic flight when additional stroke symptoms appeared; and
• Ignoring the airline’s own established emergency medical protocols.

The $9.6 million award establishes new precedent that airlines cannot prioritize schedules over passenger safety during international medical emergencies.

Looking Forward: A New Legal Framework

“We believe this will be a landmark decision for passenger rights under the Montreal Convention,” Singh concluded. “When passengers trust airlines with their lives on international flights, that trust comes with the legal obligations to follow their own safety protocols. This verdict, which will largely pay for Mr. Plasencia’s 24/7 care for the rest of his life, makes that clear.”

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This release is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

CASE INFORMATION

Northern District of California, San Jose Division
Tavantzis et al. v. American Airlines, Inc.
Case No: 5:23-cv-05607-NW

The suit is seeking over $8 billion in damages, naming Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Data Services, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and several top executives personally, including Amazon’s Founder and Chairman Jeffrey Bezos, Andy Jassy, President and CEO, Dennis Wallace, General Counsel, Keith Klein, AWS Real Estate Transaction Manager, Yousri Omar, Director and Associate General Counsel at Amazon, Matthew Doden, Senior Corporate Counsel on Amazon’s Business Conduct and Ethics Team, and former Vice President of AWS Data Center Community at Amazon Web Services, Chris Vonderhaar.

The detailed 70-page complaint describes a Colorado business Watson founded and built from the ground up for nearly 20 years by the time he and Northstar Commercial Partners properly bid to build and own data centers for Amazon in Northern Virginia. In 2017 Northstar was a billion-dollar company, with real estate assets located in 17 states, 40 employees, and sought-after professional know-how.

According to the lawsuit, Northstar was among several developers to go through the highly competitive and rigorous bidding process to develop and own data centers for Amazon, which are large buildings that store computing machines and related hardware for data services used by companies and governments. The suit states Amazon’s Web Services branch (AWS) runs approximately 299 data centers in 20 countries.

Court records say Northstar entered the data center business in 2018, successfully completing its first two data centers for Amazon by 2019. Northstar completed two more and was on track to deliver five more, after additional extensive bidding processes.

“Amazon alone is expected to build as many as 800 new data centers,” the suit, filed by Nicole A. Westbrook, of Jones & Keller, P.C. stated. “The growth rate for data centers is expected to triple within the next three years. In sum, Mr. Watson entered the data center development market at the beginning of a modern-day Gold Rush, which has only grown massively since then.”

Instead, the lawsuit claims, Amazon and others, including IPI Partners based in Chicago, IL., Northstar’s majority equity investor, funded by 7 billionaires of the tech industry, conspired to exclude Northstar from future data center deals to stifle competition. This was allegedly achieved by several acts, including witness tampering: bribing and pressuring Northstar’s former employees to lie in depositions and “concoct false allegations against Mr. Watson and Northstar,” according to the lawsuit. The complaint further alleges that Amazon exerted pressure on federal authorities to launch a criminal investigation into Watson, as he could only be contractually removed from the investments if he had pled guilty or was convicted of a felony. Neither of which occurred.

According to court records, Amazon as the tenant, allegedly secretly signed an agreement with Northstar’s majority equity investor, without Mr. Watson’s knowledge as the manager of the data center investments, cutting Northstar out of lucrative data center deals, resulting in profits for Amazon.

Watson and Northstar are separately suing IPI Partners and other parties for $2 billion plus additional damages in Colorado (Case No. 1:24-cv-02848) for their role in what the court documents call a mafia-like “racketeering scheme,” as well as Danny Mulcahy the former Northstar employee who is accused of emailing Bezos about the alleged fabricated kickback scheme, asking for a job or money in return. (Case No. 1:24-cv-02606.)

In their lawsuit against Amazon, Watson and Northstar allege the $2.3 trillion tech giant also pursued civil lawfare against them, instigating an SEC investigation. As a result of all these actions, Watson’s home was subjected to an FBI raid, Northstar suffered financial losses exceeding $2 billion, all but one of the 40 employees lost their jobs, and Mr. Watson was harmed personally and professionally.  According to the federal lawsuit, Watson was forcibly removed from his business assets and personal estate, as Amazon and its legal counsel filed multiple false affidavits with the Virginia Court to secure a Receiver to control and hobble Mr. Watson’s assets for almost the past three years, so he could not pay to defend himself against Amazon’s “blitzkrieg attack.” In their complaint, Watson and Northstar say Amazon and its legal counsel at Gibson Dunn later rescinded these false Affidavits for being untrue, but only after the Receiver had been appointed by the Court at Amazon’s request. Alvarez and Marsal was the sole firm that Amazon asked the federal court to appoint to handle the Receivership, and the firm charged Mr. Watson’s company and estate up to $450,000 per month for their supposed services, according to the suit.

The federal complaint accuses the tech giant and its associates of violating antitrust laws, RICO statutes, and other legal claims. Of the 15 claims stated in the lawsuit, this is one of the first times that an antitrust claim has ever been used against Amazon for these specific claims and seems to be the first time in American legal history that the company has been accused of colluding with the Federal Government to limit fair competition in the data center marketplace. Watson and Northstar are seeking treble damages under antitrust law, which could potentially amount to over $8 billion. Consequently, this is the largest lawsuit filed against Amazon and these executives personally since the company’s founding, and is the largest lawsuit ever filed in the State of Colorado for such claims.

“I worked very hard to build my company up from nothing for almost 20 years, and it has been heartbreaking to see how a $2.3 trillion company can manipulate and control the legal system and governmental agencies in America,” Watson said. “I have never been a litigious person prior to Amazon’s attacks, but someone has to hold such corporate behemoths accountable, or they will continue to destroy others. My company may have been small and insignificant in their eyes, but we are filled with grit, persistence, and determination to seek justice.”

According to the complaint, the DOJ ended its investigation in January of 2024. The Receivership that controlled Mr. Watson’s assets was finally removed in May 2024. Additionally, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Watson and Northstar on all of Amazon’s Federal claims in March 2023, leaving one state law-based claim with no alleged financial damages to Amazon, stating that those claims were not even worthy to proceed to trial.

CASE INFORMATION

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
BRIAN WATSON; W.D.C. HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a NORTHSTAR COMMERCIAL PARTNERS; and NORTHSTAR COMMERCIAL PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON DATA SERVICES, INC., f/k/a VADATA, Inc.; AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.; JEFFREY BEZOS; D. MATTHEW DODEN; ANDY JASSY; KEITH KLEIN; YOUSRI OMAR; CHRIS VONDERHAAR; and DENNIS WALLACE.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03559
Download the Case (PDF)

The case in question, Frank Giordano v. Georgia De Toledo (Case No: FST-CV-18-6039157-S), dated June 20, 2023, focused on the lost income of an interventional cardiologist specializing in transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVR). Arrigo’s testimony contributed to the court’s understanding of the intricacies of assessing damages related to lost income in the medical profession.

Arrigo’s scope of expertise included examining the Fair Market Value (FMV) of physician compensation, comparing productivity using work relative value units (wRVUs), and benchmarking against similarly situated physicians. His analysis encompassed various factors such as medical specialty, geographic location, years of practice, on-call time, etc.

Furthermore, his testimony addressed the lost compensation compared to peers at academic medical centers, considering National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, faculty tenure, and the balance of income derived from teaching versus active medical practice.

A leading authority on medical billing and Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Arrigo is recognized for his extensive work in healthcare legislation compliance, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the HITECH Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). His expertise extends to healthcare IT, electronic health record forensics, and laboratory billing, reinforcing his status as a distinguished expert.

Moreover, Arrigo’s knowledge is reinforced by his role as a financial expert under Regulation S-K of the Securities Act of 1933, owing to his leadership in corporate governance, including his service on the board of directors of a publicly traded company.

His scholarly contributions include a peer-reviewed article highlighting his clinical documentation improvement research at a leading academic medical center. This research has been pivotal in understanding the significant link between accurate clinical documentation and the evaluation of healthcare services.

The court’s decision to recognize Michael Arrigo’s expertise emphasizes his competence in physician compensation and underscores the importance of qualified testimony in complex medical-legal cases. Arrigo’s expertise in the healthcare industry makes him a chosen educator of the trier of fact in litigation, where complex data, medical codes, charges, and payments play a critical role in adjudicating and resolving disputes.

About Michael Arrigo Admitted as an Expert in Physician Compensation

Mr. Arrigo is one of the leading medical billing experts in the U.S., an expert in Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Medicare Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA), HIPAA Privacy and Security, ARRA HITECH Act Protected Health Information Safeguards, Electronic Health Record forensic audit reviews, laboratory testing and laboratory CPT codes, esoteric testing medical bills, the Certification of Electronic Health Record Technology (“CEHRT”) for promoting interoperability and meaningful use, healthcare IT intellectual property, including the use of blockchain and cryptography, and crypto assets, coverage of healthcare benefits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA” or “ACA”) as well as rebuttals to life care plans under the Affordable Care Act.

He is the primary author of a peer-reviewed article regarding his research in clinical documentation improvement at a leading academic medical center.

Mr. Arrigo was admitted as an expert in corporate governance.  He led a Sarbanes Oxley internal IT audit of a Fortune 100 public company; his familiarity with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) guidance and his current service as a member of the Board of Directors of a public company where he serves on the Audit Committee and as chair of the Compensation Committee, qualified as a financial expert as defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).

The lawsuit, filed by Roreste Refuerzo and other Southwest Airlines flight attendants, claims that the airline’s attendance policy, instituted in 2019, disqualified employees who took FMLA leave from participating in mechanisms that reduce disciplinary points. Under Southwest’s policy, flight attendants who accumulate 12 disciplinary points face termination. The plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that this policy effectively penalizes those who take FMLA leave, making it a negative factor in their employment status and disciplinary records.

The court certified three specific classes for this lawsuit:

Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class (b)(2): This class includes all Southwest flight attendants in the United States who have taken FMLA leave since March 1, 2019, and consequently lost access to disciplinary points reduction.

California Subclass (b)(2): This subclass includes all Southwest flight attendants based in California who have taken FMLA leave since March 1, 2019, and faced the same penalty.

Nationwide Damages Class (b)(3): This class is composed of flight attendants across the United States who took FMLA leave, were denied disciplinary points reduction, and were subsequently terminated for accumulating 12 or more disciplinary points.

The court found that common questions of law and fact predominate in the case, particularly whether Southwest’s policy constitutes interference with FMLA rights as claimed by the plaintiffs. The court also ruled that a class action is a superior method for resolving these claims, noting that the cost of individual litigation would likely outweigh potential recoveries for many plaintiffs.

Southwest had argued that individual inquiries would be necessary to determine if FMLA leave was a negative factor in employment decisions and that points adjustments would require manual assessment. However, the court held that common evidence, including Southwest’s own records, could establish whether flight attendants were terminated due to points disqualification from FMLA leave.

The case will proceed with Erlich Law Firm, P.C. and Andrus Anderson LLP serving as class counsel. A status conference is scheduled for later next month to determine the next steps, including the form of class notice and a proposed schedule through trial.

The allegations made in the lawsuit highlight significant issues in the application of FMLA rights within the airline industry, and the court’s certification of these classes marks a crucial step forward for the plaintiffs seeking redress for their alleged wrongful termination and penalization.

The case continues to draw attention as it underscores the broader implications for employment practices and FMLA protections within large corporations. The outcomes of this litigation could set important precedents for how companies implement and enforce leave policies in compliance with federal laws.

CASE INFORMATION
United States District Court, Northern District of California
RORESTE REFUERZO, et al. vs SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC

The first part of the series will take place on November 13th from 5:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. at the Massachusetts School of Law’s Andover campus, located at 500 Federal Street. Attendees will receive expert insights from MSLAW faculty on critical topics including entity formation, employment law, financial literacy, business security, and contract issues.

Leading the discussions will be recognized scholars and practitioners: Joseph Devlin, a Professor of Law known for his expertise in business entity structuring; Paula Colb-Clements, renowned for her work in employment law; Michael Leamy, a Professor of Business with insights on financial acumen for small businesses; Shane Rodriguez, whose focus on business security provides vital strategies against workplace threats; and Amy Dimitriadis, who will unravel complexities in contract law.

The second session, scheduled for March 26th, will also run from 5:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. in Room 204 of the MSLAW campus. It will cover the application of project management in small businesses, handling workplace violations and discrimination, the intricacies of employee classification, company liability pertaining to employee actions, and fraud detection and prevention. This segment aims to further equip business owners with the necessary legal understanding to navigate the complexities of running a business.

Complimentary sandwiches will be provided during the seminars, fostering an environment conducive to learning and networking among attendees.

As small businesses form the backbone of local economies, the Massachusetts School of Law’s partnership with the Cummings Foundation underscores a shared vision to support the community’s economic vitality. By offering these seminars at no cost, the institutions demonstrate their investment in the success and legal literacy of small business owners and entrepreneurs.

These seminars are a unique opportunity for participants to gain access to valuable legal expertise that can protect and enhance their business operations. Both the public and business community members are encouraged to take advantage of this educational offering.

For more information on the Small Business Management seminar series, please visit the Massachusetts School of Law website at mslaw.edu.

Through initiatives like these, the Massachusetts School of Law and Cummings Foundation continue to foster a symbiotic relationship with the community, contributing to a knowledgeable and legally empowered business landscape.

The recent event has reignited concerns about the risks faced by airline workers and travelers during unforeseen in-flight conditions. According to Greenberg, who represents workers in injury cases and whose firm has helped flight attendants get compensation for their injuries, the incident is not only a tragedy but also a stark reminder of the hazards inherent in the aviation industry. “Flight attendants and crew members are on the frontline of these dangers, yet their work environment is often lacking in the necessary protections,” Greenberg stated.

Greenberg, an experienced airline worker injury lawyer, argues that the current safety measures in place are inadequate in ensuring the well-being of those aboard aircraft. “The incident on the Singapore Airlines flight should be a clear call for the industry to reassess and strengthen its safety procedures,” he said. “Flight attendants deserve a safe work environment, comparable to what is expected in any other sector.”

The turbulence event has raised questions about the effectiveness of existing protocols, particularly in situations where severe weather or unexpected conditions arise suddenly. Greenberg suggests that improved training, better safety equipment, and more rigorous procedures could significantly mitigate the risks associated with such in-flight emergencies.

While acknowledging the inherent unpredictability of air travel, Greenberg insists that more can be done to protect those who make their livelihoods in the skies. “This tragedy must be a catalyst for change. Airlines have a responsibility to safeguard our flight attendants and crew members as well as their passengers,” he affirmed.

Greenberg’s call to action comes as the aviation industry faces increased scrutiny over the safety and well-being of its employees. As investigations into the Singapore Airlines incident continue, the conversation around airline worker safety is expected to intensify.

As the managing member of a law firm that frequently deals with worker injury cases, Greenberg’s perspective holds considerable weight. His experience representing those injured on the job gives him insight into the sometimes devastating consequences of insufficient workplace safety standards.

Greenberg and his firm are committed to advocating for the rights and safety of airline workers, emphasizing that no job should place an individual at unnecessary risk, even at 35,000 feet.

Focusing on offering a comprehensive snapshot of campus life, the Open House initiates at 6:30 PM with an in-depth campus tour. This exploratory walk offers potential students a chance to navigate the grounds where they will foster intellectual prowess and legal acumen.

Following the tour, the Dean will provide valuable insights into the fabric of the institution. Their address will encapsulate the ethos of MSLAW, its forward-thinking legal programs, and the rich heritage that has defined its academic landscape.

The event also presents an unrivaled chance to converse with the Director of Admissions and the Director of Financial Aid. Providing clarity on everything from the admission process to a wealth of scholarship opportunities, they remain on hand to answer any questions that prospective students may have.

To further enrich the experience, esteemed professors and alumni will share their journeys, crystallizing the vibrant life of an MSLAW student and the bright prospects that lie ahead. Their narratives will underscore the transformative experience that MSLAW offers, extending beyond textbooks and classrooms.

The event’s finale transitions into a casual setting at the campus café, where attendees can relax, connect with staff, faculty, alumni, and enjoy light refreshments. In a gesture of appreciation, all attendees will receive complimentary MSLAW merchandise as a keepsake of the evening.

The MSLAW Open House transcends beyond an event. It is a gateway to a rewarding future in law. It encapsulates the essence of MSLAW’s academic offerings, introduces potential mentors, and helps aspiring students determine their fit within this esteemed institution.

Interested individuals eager to advance their law careers at MSLAW are encouraged to secure a spot. Space is limited.

Register today for free at https://www.mslaw.edu/open-house/.

For more information, please contact: Rohit Bhasin at ro@mslaw.edu.

In a case bearing resemblance, Benjamin Law Firm clinched a jury award of $125,240, and the elimination of an $80,000 lien for their client, Indel Food Products, stemming from a breach of contract. In this situation, a prominent company wrongfully asserted claims over Indel’s airplane title, aiming to coerce an unfavorable sale.

Such instances underline Benjamin Law Firm’s unwavering dedication to resolving contract-related disagreements, whether it necessitates negotiation or litigation. While the firm leans towards alternative resolution methods like mediation and arbitration, its readiness for trial furnishes it with a distinct advantage in legal settings.

Brock Benjamin, the leading attorney at the firm, is renowned for his expertise in civil litigation, offering formidable representation and astute counsel to all clients. Benjamin Law Firm is adept at managing a wide array of commercial disputes, ranging from contract breaches and misrepresentation to fraud and tortious interference.

Businesses that have suffered due to another party’s malfeasance or are accused of contract violations can place their faith in the Benjamin Law Firm team to safeguard their rights and interests. The firm’s proven strategies for resolving contract issues and other business-related disputes are exemplified by the favorable outcomes in the Indel Foods and AV8RC cases.

Engaging with Benjamin Law Firm guarantees the involvement of seasoned civil litigation lawyers in your case. Beyond civil trials, Benjamin Law Firm also possesses a formidable criminal defense practice, representing clients at both state and federal levels. For further details, potential clients are encouraged to visit the firm’s website or reach out to their office.

CASE INFORMATION

AV8RC Aircraft Service v. Brad Welch
384th Judicial District of El Paso County, Texas
Case No. 2017DCV3081

Indel Food Products v. Dodson International Parts Inc
The Western District of Texas El Paso Division
Case No. 3:20-cv-00098-KC

Attorney Jackson is licensed to practice law in both South Carolina and North Carolina. Wilson also has several unique trainings which enhance his knowledge as a truck accident attorney. He graduated from a 160 Hour Truck Driver Training Program in accordance with 49 CFR 380.503 and obtained a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). Additionally, he graduated from the Certified Director of Safety (CDS) course through the North American Transportation Management Institute (NATMI).

Additionally, Wilson previously practiced law by working for trucking companies and their insurers. He was a member of a team of lawyers that served as national and regional counsel for several large motor carriers in cases involving serious injuries and death. Through that position, he handled all aspects of truck accident litigation—from rapid response evidence collection at the scene of the accident through closing arguments at trial. He now applies his experience to help people who have been injured by the negligence of another.

“I refuse to be outworked by large companies and their attorneys. During my time as a defense lawyer, I learned that they place a higher value on profit margins than the lives and injuries of real people,” says Wilson when asked about what drives him in his work.

Wilson is recognized as a 2023 South Carolina Rising Star in Transportation Law and Maritime Law by Super Lawyers, and by South Carolina Legal Elite for Personal Injury and Litigation.

A graduate of The Citadel – The Military College of South Carolina and the University of South Carolina School of Law, Wilson served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judge Michael G. Nettles, Resident Judge and Chief Administrative Judge for the Twelfth Circuit (Florence and Marion Counties). Following that, he had the honor of serving as a law clerk to The Honorable Justice Garrison D. Hill during his tenure on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

While growing up, Wilson spent his summers working at his grandfather’s veterinary hospital cleaning out dog kennels. In high school and college, he worked in a hardware store and as a landscaping contractor. Those experiences made him appreciate hard work as he was required to contribute to the family while his peers were enjoying their free time. It also shaped his desire and passion to help people.

Wilson is an excellent addition to the Steinberg Law Firm. He adds to the firm’s 170 years of combined legal experience handling South Carolina injury claims. The Steinberg Law Firm has represented injured individuals of South Carolina since 1927. The firm has three offices located in Charleston, Goose Creek, and Summerville. The firm offers free consultations and does not collect a fee unless they win your case. To learn more about the Steinberg Law Firm, visit steinberglawfirm.com or call (843) 720-2800 today.

Southwest Airlines (NYSE:LUV), a primary U.S. and international carrier, is accused of instituting a policy that effectively penalizes its flight attendants for taking family and medical leave. The company uses a points-based disciplinary system that adds points to an employee’s record for certain attendance violations and removes points for good attendance. Some Southwest employees who used FMLA leave were allegedly no longer able to have attendance points deducted from their records, according to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Southwest employees fired for reaching the maximum allowed attendance points after using FMLA leave after March 1, 2019 may be entitled to compensation. Employees who did not have attendance points removed from their record after taking FMLA leave during this period may also qualify for relief.

“Firing or otherwise retaliating against an employee who takes protected medical leave for an approved reason is unlawful,” commented attorney Jason Erlich of Erlich Law Firm, an employment law firm in Oakland, California. “If there is evidence that Southwest Airlines engaged in FMLA violations, the company should be held accountable. Taking legal action allows affected employees to pursue damages and end their employer’s illegal practices.”

The lawsuit’s lead plaintiff Roreste Refuerzo started working as a flight attendant for Southwest Airlines in August 2006. He was terminated in February 2020 based on Southwest’s disciplinary points system in violation of the FMLA and California labor laws. Refuerzo represents a proposed nationwide class and California subclass of Southwest employees who used FMLA leave and were wrongfully terminated or otherwise harmed by the employer’s policy.

On May 12, 2022, the court rejected Southwest’s efforts to dismiss the case. The court ruled in favor of the lead plaintiff Roreste Refuerzo finding that his claims could support an inference that his FMLA leave “was a negative factor in the decision to terminate him; it quite literally gave him a worse score” and that “employees would be less likely to exercise their FMLA leave rights because doing so would increase their chances of termination.” The court also rejected Southwest’s efforts to prevent the case moving forward as a class action. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case nor decided to certify a class.

In the meantime, Erlich Law Firm is interested in hearing about the experiences of current and former Southwest Airlines employees who used FMLA leave at any time since March 2019.

Southwest Airlines employees who would like to discuss their legal rights with an employment lawyer are invited to contact Erlich Law Firm. The consultation is free. There is no obligation to speak to a lawyer.

If you have any questions, please call (510) 390-9140 or send an email to Erlich Law Firm by completing the form, found HERE.

Erlich Law Firm provides skilled legal representation to workers facing family and medical leave violations and other employment issues. The law firm is dedicated to protecting the rights of employees in both California state and federal courts.

If you are associated with the press and would like to contact Jason Erlich for further questions about this case, send an email to: https://erlich.lawyer/contact/email-jason/.

Contact:

Erlich Law Firm
180 Grand Ave.
Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 390-9140

Andrus Anderson LLP
155 Montgomery Street
Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 986-1400

Mr. Bandary after unanimous acquittal in Utah

Los Angeles, CA (Law Firm Newswire) September 26, 2019 – Perhaps no group of Americans has been subject to a greater increase in racial profiling over the last two decades than those of Middle Eastern descent. When it comes to air travel, those prejudices are even more acute.

But when American corporations condone — and engage in — such practices, the damage inflicted on the victims can last a lifetime.

Such was the experience for one United States citizen, whose racial profiling at the hands of Delta Air Lines not only left him humiliated and hospitalized, it resulted in the loss of his passport, on the no-fly list and probation, facing federal charges in another state.

Ultimately, a jury found this man not guilty. And beginning this week in a Central District of California courtroom, attorney Zein Obagi, Jr. of Obagi Law Group will fight to ensure that Delta faces the consequences for its actions, and learns that no human deserves the treatment endured by one unfortunate customer.

In Bandary v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., USDC CD Cal Case No. 517-cv-01065, Mr. Obagi and his team will show how the actions of the flight crew put an innocent man in cuffs and left him injured, humiliated and facing federal charges. What’s more, these behaviors arose from the crew’s assumptions about a man born in the Middle East — assumptions they made before ever interacting with him based on his skin, hair and eye color, and his frequent need to use the restroom due to his disability.

Mr. Bandary was raised in Egypt. Though he earned an accounting degree at Cairo University and began working for Kuwaiti Airlines early in his adult life, as a gay man living in the Middle East and having physical disabilities, Mr. Bandary always lived in fear.

In 1992, after being beaten, tortured and fired from his job because of his sexual orientation, Mr. Bandary escaped to the United States. Mr. Bandary was able to live as an openly gay man in his new home, and in 1998 became a U.S. citizen. He had found his land of opportunity and developed his love for the United States.

But Mr. Bandary’s experience before coming to the U.S. had left him frail. He suffered from a condition that, combined with the physical and emotional torment Mr. Bandary experienced before coming to the U.S., left him frail and suffering from a variety of ailments. He lost 50 pounds within three years of his arrival. He had been classified as disabled since 2004 due to chronic diarrhea that causes him to frequent the restrooms during waking hours.

After traveling with his friend — who has bladder cancer and Parkinson’s disease, and for whom Mr. Bandary is the primary caregiver — to Argentina, Mr. Bandary and his friend boarded a Delta flight in Buenos Aires in May 2015. The final destination was Mr. Bandary’s home near Palm Springs, Calif., with layovers in Atlanta and Salt Lake City.

Almost immediately upon boarding the plane at the Atlanta stopover – even after he had proceeded through immigration and security screening for a second time in the United States – Mr. Bandary was labeled a “needy” passenger by the flight crew. Because flight attendants were annoyed with his trips to the bathroom, they him denied food and water he needed to take with his medication, leaving him with an upset stomach and in greater need of the restroom.

Ultimately, the crew refused Mr. Bandary entrance to the restroom, causing him to soil himself. Rather than showing compassion, the crew continued to profile Mr. Bandary, even enlisting passengers in helping to intimidate him into getting back in his seat.

Eventually, the crew enlisted the help of an armed federal agent on board the flight, who dislocated Mr. Bandary’s shoulder while forcing him into plastic handcuffs, all the while with both the agent and the crew physically assaulted Mr. Bandary.

Yet amazingly, the hell Mr. Bandary ultimately endured was just beginning.

He was removed from the plane forcibly by law enforcement in Salt Lake City, called a “mentally disturbed passenger” by the crew. He was handcuffed to a gurney and taken to a hospital where, as a result of what Delta reported, he was forced to undergo an involuntary psychological examination.

Delta destroyed Mr. Bandary’s luggage, publicly shamed him, banned him from the airline, and refused to take him to his final destination. Instead, Mr. Bandary drove 10 hours with his companion back to California. Thereafter, Mr. Bandary was charged with federal crimes, resulting in the seizure of his passport for 20 months and rendering him unable to continue receiving medical care in Argentina.

Despite living in California, Mr. Bandary stood trial in Salt Lake City. But it was at this trial where some justice was finally served.

At the criminal trial, Delta crew members acknowledged Mr. Bandary’s skin color, eyes and face played a role in their judgment of him, as well as his frequent trips to the bathroom — though they did not take the time to ask Mr. Bandary why he had to so frequently use the bathroom. One passenger, an off-duty pilot for Jet Blue, even told the crew that, in his opinion, Mr. Bandary was a terrorist.

Once all sides were heard, the verdict was unanimous. Mr. Bandary was found not guilty of any crime in a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. He was guilty only of looking Middle Eastern on a plane. 

The pain Mr. Bandary endured, simply because of the way he looked, is something no person deserves. American corporations who allow their employees to engage in racial profiling must be held accountable for the damage their practices inflict on people, and beginning this week, Obagi Law intends to do just that.

Questions or comments directed at Obagi Law Group, P.C. may be emailed to support@obagilaw.com or made via telephone to (424) 284-2401.

San Francisco, CA (Law Firm Newswire) November 8, 2017 – Dexter Tam takes on link building in the feature article, describing the necessity of link connections through Search Engine Optimization (SEO) that leads to higher rates on Google search engine results pages. SEO includes website content, promotion and links, noting that some links are more valuable than others due to their origin and domain authority. Staying proactive with link building can lead to further success for a firm; though time-consuming, creating links will increase a firm’s ranking on the Google search engine results page.

Explore common myths about bounce rates as Kristen Friend hones in on its surrounding negativity and explains a more positive approach to website traffic analysis. While bounce rate has a significant part in understanding a site’s success, it is more beneficial to turn to the pages that have a higher exit rate instead to determine what to cut or add to the site’s content. Now, turn to Brendan Conley’s elucidation of “Key Performance Indicators” to further understand the importance of turning to a company-specific approach rather than a generalized thought; the information is out there waiting for individuals to focus on what is most crucial for their firm. Think again about the excitement of new social media followers — is this where the true clients are generated, or just more clicks?

Glimpse into a new realm of cryptocurrency and application anonymity with Ryan Conley’s analysis of “blockchain.” With its only rival being paper currency, bitcoin has become blockchain’s most widespread application. Large corporations are beginning to see potential in blockchain technology, creating a possible future of disruptions and enhancements for many industries.

Amongst addiction and rehabilitation lies a rapid unveiling of corruption in sober living houses. Kerrie Spencer highlights the detriment caused by “Body Brokers,” recruiters that search for addicts to financially prey on. Different approaches to the issue have caused uproar and frustration as law enforcement and legal officials push forward to a solution to this pending social issue.

Justin Torres reminds Bigger Law Firm readers of how much data Google saves and suggests ways to secure online privacy. Finally, learn how to strengthen communication with strategy and style guides with Dipal Parmar in an explanation of the necessity of consistency in marketing content. While there may be many working on a single project, keeping the content cohesive is key.

Look for the new issue of BLF Magazine in mailboxes and on biggerlawfirm.com today.

Now Available on iOS, Android, and Kindle.

Download Link Building, the Latest Issue of Bigger Law Firm Magazine

Follow BLF Magazine
Twitter

Facebook

Google+

More From BLF Magazine and News
[wp_rss_retriever url=”https://www.biggerlawfirm.com/feed/” num=”10″ excerpt=”false”]

La Jolla, CA (Law Firm Newswire) August 30, 2017 – The Restoring Board Immunity Act of 2017, proposed earlier this month by Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Benjamin Sasse, would give antitrust immunity to all boards of a state if the state (1) commissions a study to reform occupational licensing laws, and (2) enacts legislation providing for either active supervision or judicial review of licensing board decisions. A companion bill was also introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Darrell Issa.

The proposal comes just two years after the U.S. Supreme Court held in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC that professional licensing boards comprising active market participants, such as dentists in private practice, are not entitled to antitrust immunity under the state-action doctrine unless they show both elements of the Midcal test. In the case, the board argued that it was an arm of the state and did not need supervision for entitlement to the immunity. Supporters of the bill claim that NC Dental created uncertainty that Congress is best situated to resolve, and that the bill would also incentivize states to roll back occupational licensing regimes that have run amok. Issa, for example, claims that “without congressional action, states will try to get away with the bare minimum levels of board accountability while labeling it ‘active supervision.’ ”

Gott’s post, which was published on TheAntitrustAttorney.com blog, provides details about the bill and discusses various problems that he perceives with the bill. Gott argues that the bill “would grant states an antitrust immunity as a carrot in exchange for empty promises about licensing reform,” and that the federal courts already do their job to provide immunity where it is warranted.

“Although the sponsors claim the contrary, the bill would actually water down the active supervision requirement and make it far easier for active market participants to wield the licensing boards they control as anticompetitive weapons,” said Gott.

Gott is an attorney with Bona Law PC, a boutique antitrust litigation firm in La Jolla, California. Bona Law PC represents plaintiffs and defendants in competitor antitrust litigation and defendants in multidistrict class action antitrust litigation in federal courts throughout the United States. It also specializes in litigating cases against entities claiming state-action immunity.

The post is available here.

Bona Law PC
4275 Executive Square #200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 964-4589
www.businessjustice.com

The Antitrust Attorney Blog
[wp_rss_retriever url=”https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/feed/” num=”10″ excerpt=”false”]

Attorneys Stewart H. Lapayowker and Scott Burgess formed Lapayowker Burgess LLP

“Scott and I have a unique, shared experience in business aviation law and have worked together on common clients and on the opposite sides of complex business aviation transactions for years,” said Lapayowker. “Merging the two successful practices made perfect sense. Combining our experience in cross-border aviation transactions and aviation-related litigation with Stewart’s existing national and international practice base will give the firm greater depth and wider market appeal,” said Burgess.

The new firm will be located at the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, with an address of 5360 N.W. 20th Terrace Suite 205, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The attorneys at Lapayowker Burgess will continue their focus on business aviation transactions worldwide, throughout the United States, the European Union, Central and South America, the African Continent, Asia and the Middle East. The legal team assists the firm’s clients with a variety of transactional and litigation matters related to aviation, including the sale, purchase, regulatory analysis, financing and management of corporate aircraft. The firm’s attorneys have extensive experience working with legal and tax departments of large public companies as well as private aircraft owners, helping design and implement the appropriate planning objectives and operating structures.

Lapayowker attended the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania before earning his JD from Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law. He is Chair of the National Business Aviation Association’s Tax and Regulatory Committee, past Chair of its Aircraft Transactions Working Group, Vice-Chair of its Regulatory Working Group and a member of the Aviation Law Committee of The Florida Bar.

Burgess completed his undergraduate work at Florida State University. He went on to attend Stetson University College of Law to receive his JD, and is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts of the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida and the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. He is a Multi-Engine Instrument Pilot, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Civil Mediator, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Appellate Mediator, a member of the Space Law Forum Section of the American Bar Association, a member of the Aviation Law Committee of The Florida Bar and has served on the board of directors of the National Aircraft Resale Association and the National Aircraft Finance Association.

Lapayowker Burgess LLP
Based in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the law firm focuses its practice on business aviation transactions worldwide, throughout the United States, Central and South America, the European Union, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The firm regularly assists clients with a variety of transactional and litigation matters related to aviation, including the sale, purchase, regulatory analysis, financing and management of corporate aircraft. Their attorneys have experience working with legal departments and tax departments of large public companies to implement appropriate operating structures and planning objectives. Lapayowker Burgess is committed to providing their clients with aviation legal representation.

Lapayowker Burgess, LLP Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport 5360 N.W. 20th Terrace Suite 205 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Call: 954.202.9600

Space is very limited. Join the CLM Conversation in Tampa, FL on May 13, 2015

REGISTER NOW

Jason Bland will host the first CLM Conversation at The Tampa Club

Tampa, FL (Law Firm Newswire) April 21, 2015 – Custom Legal Marketing is launching a new nationwide series called CLM Conversations. The event promises to be everything attorneys can’t get from a crowded convention, offering attorneys a chance to have a real conversation about their online marketing with a CLM expert, entirely free and without the pressure to sign a contract on the spot.

To start the nationwide tour, Custom Legal Marketing is heading back to its hometown: Tampa, Florida. The first of 10 Conversations scheduled for 2015 will be held at the Tampa Club on May 13.

Skip the Sales Pitch
Every day, lawyers contact Custom Legal Marketing, expressing frustration with their websites, their marketing personnel, and the high-pressure sales reps who field their calls at marketing companies. Custom Legal Marketing’s lead Legal Marketing Enthusiast, Jason Bland, decided that lawyers deserve a more customized path to information.

“We wanted to bring lawyers together in a small platform to hear their challenges and help them discover real solutions, without pressure or crowds. Lawyers need the opportunity to have a conversation that fits into their busy schedules,” said Bland.

The CLM Conversation platform is unlike any other opportunity currently available to law firms. It combines expert advice with the opportunity to bring specific, real questions to the table. Lawyers should know what to expect before signing up for the free event:

• All Conversations are held in large conference rooms at society clubs and Class A business centers, so that attendees can enjoy a comfortable setting.
• First, the CLM Enthusiast will share an actionable marketing tip, called a Conversation Starter. This is usually a 20-minute presentation, accompanied by literature the attendees can take with them to help them employ the strategy at their own firms. A 10-minute discussion to clarify any questions about the presentation follows.
• Then, the conversation starts. Attendees have an opportunity to ask about any marketing challenge their firm is facing, including search engine rankings, local marketing, social marketing, website-related questions, link building and other online marketing topics.

Once as many questions as possible have been answered, attendees will part ways. CLM does have availabilities for some practice areas in some U.S. cities (the company only works with one firm in a given practice area in a given metro area), and those who have taken part in the conversation will receive contact information for their Legal Marketing Enthusiast, should they wish to follow up with more questions and/or launch a larger relationship with CLM.

Space for Tampa’s CLM Conversation is very limited, so click here to reserve your seat.

CLM Conversation – Tampa, FL
Conversation Starter: Getting High-Value Visitors with Low-Cost Clicks

Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Time: 10:00AM to 11:30AM
Location: The Tampa Club
101 East Kennedy Blvd Suite 4200
Tampa, FL 33602

See other CLM Conversations at https://custom.legal/seminars/. Custom Legal Marketing An Adviatech company Toll Free: 1.800.789.6451