Until recently, Wilson Elser represented American Airlines in a lawsuit brought by the family of a 9-year-old girl who was lured into an airplane bathroom where a flight attendant had rigged his phone to record children. This relationship has ended abruptly after Wilson Elser argued that the child “knew or should have known [the bathroom] contained a visible and illuminated recording device.”
This approach of placing blame on children for their victimization has not only been widely condemned but has also caused significant public backlash. American Airlines swiftly distanced itself from Wilson Elser, choosing to replace the Am Law 100 firm with a Texas-based firm. However, this development raises questions about the role of the airline in this legal strategy.
It is noteworthy that American Airlines employed a flight attendant who is facing federal charges of “attempted sexual exploitation of children and possession of images of child sexual abuse.” Confronted with a lawsuit from the victim’s family, the airline opted to litigate the case rather than quietly settle it. Observers have pointed out that such a defense is typically part of the obligation of outside counsel when representing a client insistent on going to court. Arguments that include some level of comparative negligence can be the minimum required to represent the client effectively.
The responsibility for this contentious legal stance does not rest solely on Wilson Elser. American Airlines, as a sophisticated company with professional in-house counsel, would have approved any significant legal filings before they were submitted. Therefore, the airline “knew or should have known” the implications of the defense it was allowing to be presented.
In light of the public relations hit, Wilson Elser is remaining tight-lipped on the matter, while American Airlines seems to avoid similar scrutiny. For further details, consult the original article on Above the Law.