Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
October 14, 2011
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
As to the bold text, it's exactly what the transcript says:
MR. FRAM: Your Honor, could I just clarify in terms
of who the award is against? I assume it's against me.
THE COURT: Yes, it's not against the client (ALPA).
MR. FRAM: I just wanted to make sure.
THE COURT: It's not against ALPA. I have nothing in
the record that has suggested that somehow or other, and there
are cases where there is authority that Rule 11 can be against
a client if you can show, I believe if you can show that the
client played some role in bringing about the improper filing.
But I don't find that here. Maybe it was there but I don't
know about it, nothing in this record has suggested to me that
the motion was somehow or other ALPA's internal people were
beating up on outside counsel to file this motion. So far as
I know, this motion was the result of counsel's work. So, no.
And I'm also, actually, as part of my Order, that no part of
the $5,000 and no part of the fees can be charged back to
ALPA.
And earlier:
MR. PRESS: This is Mr. Press. (TWA lawyer)
Again, Judge, I don't know really what to add. But,
first of all, thank you for denying Mr. Fram's (ALPA lawyer) motion. But in
doing that, Judge, you characterized the allegations as almost
reckless and dubious, and that characterization I would agree
with and I think it's squarely within what Rule 11 is designed
to punish.
We were defamed by Mr. Fram in a very serious and
public way. He may be immune from civil suit, but Rule 11
provides a remedy that we think is appropriate in this
situation. And we ask for you to grant our motion and enter
whatever sanction you deem appropriate.