Thursday, February 21, 2008

Load 2 - Flying Skydivers at Skydive Chicago with Dave Schwartz in the Otter

Subscribe to Airspeed through iTunes or your favorits other podcatcher. Or listen online right here by clicking: It's all free!

Today we return to Skydive Chicago in Ottawa, Illinois for the second jump run with Dave Schwartz.

Just to remind everyone, Skydive Chicago is a 230-acre complex. The hangar has about 15,000 square feet of shade and shelter and the adjoining building contains more than 22,000 square feet of classrooms, common areas, a recreation center, a pro shop, a video department, and a deli that serves food and beverages of both the soft and adult varieties. Just to the east is a full hook-up campground that has a large pond that’s surrounded by decks and highlighted by an island. On the north shore is a white sand beach that adjoins a large pavilion with showers, laundry facilities, and volleyball court. The entire complex is surrounded by acres of pastures near the banks of the Fox River. You can canoe, hike, bike, and ride horses on the property.

It has its own runway, arranged 3/21, and it’s paved, 4,522 feet long and 50 feet wide. There’s automated weather 16 nm west and 16 nm east and six navaids within 40 miles, of which the Ottawa NDB is the closest at 3.5 miles.

We’re flying one of Skydive Chicago’s two DeHavilland DCH-6 Otters. It’s powered by two Pratt & Whitney PT6A SER engines, which produce 750 horsepower each. It weighs 8,000 to 9,000 pounds empty, and has a max gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds. It carries up to 23 people at a time.

I flew two loads with Dave in September and this is the audio from the second. If you missed the first load, please go back and download it. It posted in early January.

This load is a little different. As you’ll hear Dave explain at the beginning, we have a student getting out at 5,000 and then we’re taking the remaining jumpers the rest of the way up. So there are two jump runs in this one. The flight is about 23 minutes from wheels-up to wheels-down (as opposed to about 18 minutes last time) because Dave was kind enough to show me some more of the flight characteristics of the airplane. Just like last time, Dave is an excellent commentator and I didn’t have to do much editing. Mostly, it’s getting rid of the longer breaks in cockpit audio, most of which ware between 15 and 30 seconds. I cut about a minute and a half max.

The audio starts on the ground at the loading point just after the jumpers have settled in. The runway is only a few hundred feet from the loading point, so we’re airborne very quickly.

We maneuver to let the first jumper out at 5,000 and then it’s upstairs for the remainder of the load. I got to fly a bit more on this one. There’s one place where you’ll hear me comment about the instruments. I had been training hot and heavy for the instrument rating in Cessna 172s just before going over to Skydive Chicago and my mentality was seriously in the single-engine rut. I found myself flying on Dave’s instruments across the cockpit because it continued to evade me that I might have a full set of gages right there in front of me.. I managed to fix that halfway through the flight.

After the jumpers exited, we took a few minutes to explore the envelope of the airplane a little more. You’ll hear a power-off stall and some single-engine work before the Vne descent and then Dave will take the controls for a steep descent and short field landing. It’s a Bob-Hoover-esque demonstration of energy management with no brakes required until we rolled to the loading point.

The Otter is my favorite airplane to fly so far. It’s a solid performer and smooth as can be. Even though this was my first time flying from the right seat, it became pretty natural after I got used to the sight picture. And started using the right-seat gages.

In any case, rest assured that Dave, as pilot in command, was right there at the controls the whole time – authoritative, attentive, and the obvious master of the aircraft. Listen to the guy. Crisp and solid procedures. Checklists run with precision. Oozing safety culture. Can you imagine being in the cockpit with him and not having a great time?

So set the wayback machine for late September on the prairie outside of Ottawa, Illinois just short of the runway with a load of skydivers in the back.


Thanks again to Dave Schwartz and Skydive Chicago for the chance to check out a great aviation operation. You can find out more information about Skydive Chicago at or by calling them at 800 SKY-DIVE in the Chicago area and 815-433-0000 from everywhere else.

You can get your first tandem for about $200 and there are programs and pricing for every level of jumper. I believe that they start up operations for the season in late March or early April.

I once saw a website for a drop zone where the pilot profiles included interesting questions and the pilots’ answers. In response to the question, “Why do you fly skydivers?” one pilot had two answers: 1. Someone has to bring the airplane back. It’s too expensive the other way. 2. Nobody complains about my landings. In fact, it’s pretty quiet back there.

I can attest to both. Although Dave deserves an audience back there. I can tell you that it was pretty impressive from the right seat!

BFR and IPC Complete - Beautiful Day

I won’t begrudge Florida aviators their 300-odd VFR days a year or give them crap about the days I spend under 800-foot freezing overcasts here in Michigan. And it’s because of days like yesterday.

Just look at that sky! 15-20 F on the ground. Scattered at 3,500. Visibility unlimited. The airplane climbs like crazy. Lots of air molecules very close together.

Note the superior service here. Line tug and everything. I can finally say that I got a pushback!

Went through a Biannual Flight Review (BFR) yesterday. Even though the instrument rating in October essentially counts as a BFR, I hadn’t flown for any material amount of time VFR for a long time and I wanted to get some stalls, slow flight, takeoffs, landings, etc. in with an instructor in the right seat. Pattern work at Lapeer (KD95). Then I put on the hood and we went over to KFNT for the ILS 27 and then the RNAV 18. Did very well on each of the approaches, even with 20+ knot crosswind on the ILS.

Here’s a shot of the two aircraft that I have flown the most of late. N16TA and N20TA. They’re the two newest of the Tradewinds fleet other than N15TA, the G1000-equipped aircraft.

Got to go over and check out Flight 101 sometime in the next few weeks and make sure that I have a place to rent. Might be dun to get checked out in the C-152 again and also fly the DA40s. For now, though, I’m current for everything other than night landings and that’s pretty good for me this early in the year.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Kevin Larosa, Jr. - Our 172-Driving Proxy from One Six Right

This is a regular blog post. Looking for show audio? Check out the other entries.

So I'm doing my bit for the next generation last night watching One Six Right with my kids. I decided to watch the credits because I thought it'd be nice to see whether Will Hawkins' grandfather was credited. I noted that the producers had included a "Featured Talent" section to the credits. First, I thought it was cool that the credited these folks. Second, I thought that it was very cool that the guy who played the role of the student pilot was, in fact, a student pilot. Third, I thought that it was great that he's now a private pilot. There's class and genuineness at every turn in this film!

So there's Kevin doing his preflight. I also noticed that there's a Kevin Larosa credited as the aviation director of the film and as a pilot. On the assumption that it's not coincidental, I'm guessing that our student pilot here is the aviation director's son. Okay, a minor deduction for nepotism, but points the other way for including your son in the movie. The generational story appeals to me.

I'm the first guy to get all misty-eyed at the Pitts aerobatics and I get butterflies watching the DC-3 sequences. (I'm going to get rated in one of those this babies this summer! Can't wait!) But the thing of which I'm most proud is that I can give my daughter a squeeze there on the couch and point and say, "That's the kind of airplane Daddy flies. This movie is about a very special kind of flying. Other people point at other airplanes and say different things, but daddy is one of thousands of people that point at that kind of airplane and tell their kids, 'That's what I fly.' This movie gives us a chance to be proud in front of the people they love about something that not everybody understands."

All general aviation pilots identify with someone or something in One Six Right. Larosa the Younger is my proxy. I've only been flying since 2001 and only been a private pilot since 2004. The student element appeals to me. The fact that Larosa the Younger flies a C-172 as I do adds to the appeal. And even if I was a PA-28 jockey, I'd still point to the C-172 with almost equal pride as the aircraft that represents me and what I do.

Additionally, they did a great job with the air-to-air footage. I think that the C-172 and the student pilot message got its fair shake and then some. It's gorgeous stuff, whether over the houses or out over the mountains. And I really liked the portrayal of Larosa as performing a diligent preflight, getting into the left seat next to a wizened CFI, donning his headset, taxiing, and flying competently. It's a great visual statement of what students do and can achieve.

Larosa has some other credits as helicopter wrangler for The Guardian and miscellaneous stunts in Mr. and Mrs. Smith according to the Internet Movie Database. But for me, he's a proxy in a film that captures the soul of what drives many of us as pilots.

Good on you, Mr. Larosa! And on your dad!

Every time I peel the onion of One Six Right a little further, there's more amazing stuff. What a great touchpoint for GA and people like me and my listeners!

Friday, February 15, 2008

Tradewinds Closing its Pilot Center - No More Part 141 Training on the Field

This is a regular blog post. Show notes and links to audio appear in other posts.

Got the above letter last week. Tradewinds is closing down pilot center operations. Bummer! I really liked their aircraft and staff.

I'd imagine that the local economy has something to do with it. Tradewinds has not, within recent memory at least, been the cheapest game in town. In fact, it's been pretty pricey. But they have great aircraft and and take really good care of them. Spotless hangar floors, a well-maintained flight line, friendly folks, etc. I'll miss 'em. I hope that some of the aircraft, particularly N916TA and N920TA, stay on the field somewhere.

The other thing is that Tradewinds is the only Part 141 school in Oakland County of which I'm aware. Really glad I got the instrument rating done. Part 61 requires 50 hours PIC cross-country and I didn't have the time in the logbook. Part 141 lets you jump right in and you can technically qualify for the checkride after only 35 hours with no PIC time requirement. I probably paid more for the training itself (and of course didn't do my wallet any favors by stretching it out over more than three years) but, if your focus is solely on getting the rating (and mine was), it's a lot cheaper to go Part 141.

I'll probably be stopping by Flight 101 over the next couple of weeks to check out their aircraft and see if I can get a checkout. I'm also scheduled to try to get the flight portion of my BFR done on the 20th and get a few more approaches in to keep my instrument rating current.

Just goes to show that it's always up to you, the pilot, to manage his or her own destiny in aviation. This'll be the fourth flight school I've used since 2001. Not bad, really. But it's still a pain to switch to another place where nobody knows you and you don't know the aircraft, the procedures, etc.

And carb heat! I've been flying fuel-injected aircraft since 2003 and now I have to go back and add carb heat to the checklist! At least I'll have a place to hang my ring finger and pinky again. If the spacing from the throttle is right.

Might get checked out in the DA40 over there. But will likely start out in the C-172 for rental purposes and it might be nice to fly a C-152 again for old time's sake.

But first things first. Hoping for good weather for the BFR on the 20th!

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Legal Aspects of Aircraft Ownership - Part 2 - Sales and Use Taxes

Subscribe to Airspeed through iTunes or your favorite other podcatcher. Or listen online right here by clicking: It's all free!

Today, I’m joined by Eric Carver, my fellow member in the law firm and an expert in tax law. Eric’s practice focuses on business entity planning; taxation; estate planning; family wealth transfers; business entity formations; corporate planning and taxation; limited liability company planning and taxation; tax controversies; mergers, acquisitions and divestitures; real estate acquisitions, charitable giving and charitable trusts; contested estate, trust and probate matters; probate litigation; and decedent estates and probate administration, among other areas.

He’s admitted to the bars of Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and New York, in addition to four US District Courts and four US Court of Appeals Circuits.

And, most importantly, he’s the guy I call when I’m doing airplane deals to make sure that I get the tax aspects right.

Today we’re going to talk about the tax aspects of aircraft purchase, ownership, leasing, and sale.


Eric ( and I ( are members of the Dykema law firm. We recorded and published the episode as a service to our clients and friends for informational purposes only, and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should not consider any information on this website to be legal advice and should not act upon any such information without seeking professional counsel. Use of, and access to, this website or the episode audio does not create an attorney-client or any other relationship between Eric, me, or Dykema and the user. Accordingly, please do not send us any confidential information unless and until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established, as such information will not be protected by the attorney-client or any other privilege. Certain jurisdictions may consider the episode or this post advertising and require that we inform you of same.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Legal Aspects of Aircraft Ownership - Part 1 - Using an Enterprise to Hold your Aircraft

Subscribe to Airspeed through iTunes or your favorite other podcatcher. Or listen online right here by clicking: It's all free!

A little less jet fuel and noise in this new series of next few episodes. But it’ll be no less exciting for many and it’ll be at least interesting for most others.

We’re going to get into an area where I have more expertise than I do as a pilot. As some of you may know from the blog or the website, when I’m not strapped into the back of a military jump plane or talking to NASA scientists or leaning into the microphone as my superhero alter-ego Stephen Force, I’m mild-mannered technology and aviation lawyer Steve Tupper.

I’m a member of a large Midwest law firm that practices just about every kind of law you can think of except maybe criminal. (By the way, we’re a professional limited liability company, so we have “members” instead of “partners,” so that’s why I say that I’m a “member.”)

I do mostly technology licensing and corporate transactions, and an increasing part of my practice is aviation and aerospace. The last few aviation matters upon which I’ve worked have included a Lear 35, a Gulfstream GIII, a Cessna Citation III, and a Fokker F100 (yeah, that’s a big Fokker), a Citation Sovereign, and a Falcon 2000. Other people at the firm do Part 121, Part 135, and other work and there’s even a guy in the LA office who ran a Part 121 and 135 operation before joining the firm.

So we’re going to spend some time on a topic that’s on almost every pilot’s mind: The legal aspect of buying an airplane.

Before we get started, here’s a disclaimer. (Of course there’s a disclaimer!) Please bear in mind that what you hear on this podcast is general information about the law that applies to some aspects or the purchase, sale, and operation of aircraft in the United States. It is not legal advice and it does not create any attorney-client relationship with any listener. Every client and every proposed or actual transaction is different, and you should retain your own qualified lawyer to advise you under your particular circumstances. I don’t attempt to cover all developments that could have an effect on you or your proposed or actual transaction. Rules of certain state supreme courts may consider this advertising and require that I advise you of such designation.

Also, I know that this is serious business. I take the law and the interests of my clients very seriously. But I’m also instructed by the stylings of Rod Machado, John and Martha King, Cornell Law School Prof. Faust Rossi, and Chicago-Kent Law Professor Mike Spak, who recognize that humor and storytelling are great tools that help get points across. Long story short, this stuff is so important that I wouldn’t dream of not using humor to get these points across.

There. Disclaimer over. On with the show.

There are a number of ways in which to purchase and own an airplane. The most popular are to own it personally in your own name, own it jointly with other individuals in the individuals’ own names, or have a separate enterprise like a corporation, limited partnership, or a limited liability company own it and have one or more individuals own interests in the enterprise.

There are many reasons not to own an aircraft in your own name or, in the case of a group, in the names of the individual members of the group. Those reasons include liability governance, and others.

First, let’s look at liability.

We live in a litigious society. People will sue at the drop of a hat. Or at the drop of a fuselage if it lands in the wrong place. Most of our fellow citizens are good Joes, but even the most even-tempered guy out there is going to be a little miffed if he comes home to find an airplane sticking out of his house. And even if he isn’t miffed because his insurance company pays him for the damage, the insurance company is going to be miffed about paying Joe the money and is probably going to come after whoever stuck the airplane into the house. There’s no free lunch out there.

And, as you can imagine, it gets even uglier if people get hurt, either in the air or on the ground.

So you want to do everything you can to set up as many firewalls against liability as the law allows. We’re not talking about dodgy derivative transactions here. Just the kinds of limitations of liability that are a time-honored part of the American legal landscape.

One of the easiest and most effective ways to limit liability is to use an enterprise. By “enterprise” I mean a business or other entity. Like a corporation, limited partnership, or limited liability company. Some people call them “entities” or “non-natural persons” or use some other term, but I like to call them “enterprises.”

The best way to understand the limited liability that enterprises offer is to look at the kinds of liability that are out there if you’re just an individual or a general partnership.

First, there’s individual liability. This is the easiest. Individuals are liable for their acts and omissions. If you stick the aircraft into Joe’s house, plan on Joe suing you individually. Or at least plan on Joe suing your estate.

If you lend the aircraft to your flying buddy Carl and Carl reeks of alcohol and is loading pianos into the back to push out of the plane over the practice area, plan to be sued individually for letting Carl use your plane when he hurts somebody or himself. That’s called negligent entrustment and there are other names for it (among them, impractical, ill-advised, and stupid).

Second, let’s talk about liability with other people.

34 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a piece of legislation called the Uniform Partnership Act with its 1997 amendments. Three states have adopted the Uniform Partnership Act, but have earlier versions in place. Other states have law that is very similar, so we’re going to use the Uniform Partnership act as the example here.

Note that there’s a difference between a general partnership and a limited partnership. Whenever I talk about a “partnership” without specifying what kind, I’m talking about a general partnership.

According to the Uniform Partnership Act of 1997, a partnership is “an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit . . .” A “business,” by the way, “includes every trade, occupation, and profession.” In my limited experience, it’s a crapshoot as to what a judge or jury would find to be a “business for profit.” And there’s other state law that essentially calls any joint effort by two or more people a partnership. So, if you’re conservative – and you should be – you should assume that anything you do with another person toward a common goal is a partnership.

Now here’s the kicker. According to the Uniform Partnership Act, “all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership unless otherwise agreed by the claimant or provided by law.” Additionally, common law and other statutory law imposes joint and several liability on all the partners for any act or omission of any partner in furtherance of the objective of the partnership.

The magic and dangerous words here are “joint and several.” Joint and several liability means that the plaintiff can sue any or all of the partners, regardless of whether a particular partner was involved in the act or omission that brought on the liability. And, if the plaintiff wins a judgment, the plaintiff can collect from any one or more of the partners sued – again, regardless of whether the partner from which the plaintiff collects was himself or herself at fault.

Some examples here. If you own a plane in a partnership with Carl and Fred, all three of you are jointly and severally liable for any act or omission committed or omitted in furtherance of the partnership.

Carl goes out and borrows $10,000 against the airplane and signs a security agreement giving the lender a lien on the airplane: The lien against the airplane sticks.

Fred punches somebody in the nose on the ramp because he thinks that the other guy is tied down in the partnership’s spot: The guy with the flattened nose is probably going to sue all of you.

Carl takes off in his intoxicated state and starts pushing pianos out the back over the practice area: Get ready to be sued, even if you were at home reading the paper and had no idea that Carl and the pianos were up there.

And the plaintiffs in the last two cases could sue all of you and collect the whole thing from you, leaving you with only a right to get reimbursed by the other partners.

A partnership is usually a bad idea but, if you’re going to insist on owning an airplane as part of a partnership, at least try not to be the only partner with deep pockets.

So, having established that individual ownership and partnerships are usually not the best ideas, let’s talk about enterprises.

The thing you’re after is the limitation of liability that comes with the use of an enterprise. For example, here’s an excerpt from the Michigan Business Corporation Act. “Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, a shareholder of a corporation is not personally liable for the acts or debts of the corporation except that he or she may become personally liable by reason of his or her own acts or conduct.” [MCL § 450.1317(4);]

Most states have provisions like this in their corporate, limited liability company, and limited partnership acts. It means that, if you personally didn’t have any connection with the reason that the aircraft is sticking out of the house other than your ownership of a piece of the enterprise that owns the aircraft, you may well be okay.

So let’s look at the previous examples.

The lien on the airplane stays, although you can argue with the lender about whether it should have accepted Carl’s signature.

Fred punches the guy on the ramp. The plaintiff will almost certainly sue Fred. The plaintiff may even sue the enterprise. But if you didn’t have anything to do with the incident other than being a shareholder or member of the enterprise, the guy with the flattened nose probably isn’t going to be able to come after your house or your coin collection or your dog. At worst, he’ll clean out your buddy Fred and the assets of the enterprise (including the aircraft), but you’ll only be out whatever the value of your interest in the enterprise was.

Same with your piano-bombing buddy, Carl. As long as you didn’t have anything to do with his rendition of the Bumble Boogie from 4,000 feet AGL, your max burn will probably be whatever you paid for your interest in the enterprise.

I mentioned limited partnerships before. A limited partnership is a partnership that has at least one general partner and at least one limited partner. Generally, general partners have the unlimited joint and several liability that you’d expect for a partner in a partnership. However, the limited partners have the limited liability that you’d expect from a corporation or a limited liability company. There are tradeoffs. The limited partners usually have to be passive and can’t actively participate in the business of the limited partnership without taking on the liability of a general partner. Limited partnerships are pretty rare these days except in certain kinds of real estate deals and for tax reasons. I generally don’t recommend limited partnerships for aircraft deals. Limited liability companies and so-called “S-corporations” have most of the advantages that used to draw people to limited partnerships and are more appropriate for many deals and are much more common.

Some states have special enterprise laws that apply especially to aviation. For instance, Michigan law permits the formation of flying clubs. Under the law, a flying club is “a nonprofit entity organized for the express purpose of providing its members with an aircraft for their personal use and enjoyment.” (See MCL 259.91; I’m not sure that there’s any particular benefit to organizing as a flying club. The statute requires, among other things, that all member’s interests be equal and the club can’t rent or charter its aircraft to others. The statute also limits the revenue that the club can raise from the use of the aircraft to that necessary for the “actual operation, maintenance, and replacement or upgrade of its aircraft.” Nevertheless, I guess that the law makes it clear that it’s okay to organize the enterprise as a nonprofit corporation, at least under some circumstances. Check the law in your state to see if any statutory or regulatory regimes help organizations own and operate aircraft. An aviation lawyer in your state will probably know the ins and outs of any similar law where you live.

There are disadvantages and caveats to owning an aircraft through an enterprise, too. Let’s look at the disadvantages first.

There’s more paperwork and formality. You have to file formation documents like articles of incorporation or organization. You have to have other governing documents like bylaws or an operating agreement. You have to have meetings or at least do consent resolutions.

You may have to file an additional tax return, even if the organization is a nonprofit corporation.

You may have to hire and pay professionals like lawyers and accountants to help you with the formalities.

I also have four caveats here on the liability side.

1. Even if you decide to go ahead with an enterprise, you’ll have to do several things to give you the best possibility of avoiding having a plaintiff do what’s called “piercing the corporate veil.” That’s where a plaintiff convinces a court to ignore the enterprise and its limited liability and allow the plaintiff to go after the owners individually. I say “corporate” veil, but the concept applies to corporations, limited liability companies, and other forms of enterprise.

There are several theories upon which plaintiffs usually base their veil-piercing efforts and most or all are based upon the general idea that the enterprise is a sham that doesn’t deserve to be treated as the barrier that it’s intended to be. Failure to observe corporate formalities like having shareholder or member meetings is a big one. Have at least annual meetings, keep records, and filing the required reports with the state.

Commingling assets between the enterprise and the individual owner or owners is another big one. Keep separate books and records for the enterprise and make sure that the enterprise has its own bank accounts. Also make sure that the other assets of the enterprise and the owners are kept separate. It’s probably not horrible if one of the members borrows the stakes and tiedowns to go to Oshkosh, but get nervous if one or more of the members start storing boats and motorcycles in the hangar to the point where you can’t fit the aircraft in there. If you can’t tell by observing your operations which assets are those of the enterprise and which assets are those of the owners, you probably have issues.

Plaintiffs also like to try to assert that the enterprise doesn’t have enough capital to carry on its business. The enterprise that owns the plane should probably have all of the resources that a reasonable person would have for the operation of the plane. Having enough money in the enterprise to handle the usual care and feeding of the airplane should be enough. That may include a TBO fund and enough money to purchase and maintain insurance, too. It all depends on how demanding the law of your state is.

The way you hold out the enterprise to the world also matters. If you walk around calling the airplane “your airplane,” or if you call your fellow enterprise owners your “partners,” don’t be surprised if the people with whom you deal are less than enthusiastic about recognizing the existence of the enterprise when it’s lawsuit time. Call yourself a “shareholder” or “member” of the corporation or limited liability company and use the name of the enterprise in contracts and other dealings with others. For example, sign documents “BobCo, LLC, by Bob Smith, its Member” so there’s absolutely no doubt about the parties with whom others are dealing and in what capacity.

Last, but not least, no enterprise will protect you from liability for your fraud. If you’re committing actual skullduggery, don’t expect the enterprise to protect you. And don’t ask me to be your lawyer.

2. Nothing about the limited liability associated with an enterprise will save you personally from liability if you were the guy or gal flying the aircraft or if you participated in flying the aircraft as part of the incident that led to the aircraft sticking out of Joe’s house. The same probably goes for other personal acts or omissions that lead to injury of someone, such as if you egged Fred on when he punched the guy on the ramp or helped Carl load those pianos into the aircraft. Individuals usually remain liable for their own contracts and torts regardless of whether there’s an enterprise involved.

3. All a lawyer and a legal structure can do is give you a chance of winning a lawsuit. Nothing, but nothing, will necessarily keep you from getting sued. There are no magic bullets. You may get yourself dismissed from the suit early on or you may win the suit, but it is in the nature of plaintiffs’ counsel to sue everyone who’s even remotely close to the suit’s blast radius and even getting out on summary disposition will probably cost you a lot of money in legal fees. Remember through all of this that even the best lawyer on the planet can only give you a good chance of winning a lawsuit. No lawyer on the planet can keep you from getting sued if the plaintiff really wants to sue you.

4. Get your own lawyer to explain this under your particular circumstances. I told you this stuff was complicated!

I recorded and published the episode as a service to myclients and friends for informational purposes only, and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should not consider any information on this website to be legal advice and should not act upon any such information without seeking professional counsel. Use of, and access to, this website or the episode audio does not create an attorney-client or any other relationship between me or my firm and the user. Accordingly, please do not send me any confidential information unless and until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established, as such information will not be protected by the attorney-client or any other privilege. Certain jurisdictions may consider the episode or this post advertising and require that we inform you of same.