We recently reported that the search for MH 370 has been resumed by the Australians. But little has been reported about what is going on in either the investigation or related proceedings regarding MH 17, the Malaysia Airlines aircraft shot down on July 17, 2014.
With 38 Australians perishing on the aircraft, The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported about the “insulting” monetary offers made to the families of the Australian families by Malaysia Airlines.
Plane-ly Spoken has, on several prior occasions, focused on the general issue of airline responsibility in both MH 370 and MH 17.
What’s noteworthy about this latest media account is the report that a plaintiff’s attorney from the United States has become a “co-associate” of a Sydney law firm in representing eight Australian families.
Now, don’t get us wrong, we’re all in favor of all of the families receiving proper representation. But is it really necessary for a US lawyer to travel halfway around the world to “co-associate” with an Australian law firm, to represent Australian families in connection with an airline loss that has virtually no contact with the United States – a foreign airline, foreign citizens, shot down by foreigners, over a foreign country? Granted, it was an airplane built in the United States, but that has nothing to do with the airplane being shot down.
Is the Australian plaintiff’s bar really so lacking in competence, they need some American lawyer to help them out? Or is it a comment on the plaintiffs’ bar in the United States that they have to go halfway around the world to get business?
We hope this is not a reflection on the competence or skill of the Australian authorities as they resume the search for MH 370 in the Indian Ocean.
(Originally posted October 24, 2014)