“Any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s use of the compromised lavatory, which she knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device,” according to one of the various legal defenses offered by American Airlines’ lawyers.

You think that's bad, read up on how they treated the families of people who were on Flight 191.

What should good dolphin's people say? "My client is liable. Take everything." Besides, the gripe is with legal defenses and lawers, not AA.

According to American, it seems, any 9 year old victim of child pornography is really to blame because they should have known that the flight attendant American Airlines put there was recording them and did not speak up.

I genuinely do not know what to say, other than American Airlines is not being well-represented by its legal counsel.

• A natural inclination of a lawyer is to make plenty of arguments, and do whatever they think it takes to win on the basis of law. Not all arguments work well, but if you don’t assert an argument you’re frequently not going to be able to make it in subsequent proceedings.
• But a good lawyer is more commercially-savvy than that. They aren’t just looking to make arguments in court (no matter how bad or offensive). They are looking out for the business.
• Some arguments – even good arguments – shouldn’t be made when they’ll hurt the client more than help them.
• And sometimes a case should be settled even before forcing the plaintiff to survive summary judgment, even before grinding them down in depositions, and even if you think you have a reasonable chance of previaling on the merits.

A lawyer’s job is not just about the law, it’s about helping to guide a client to the best decision for their business given the legal stakes and broader stakes as well.

do you blame a company's pr rep when they come out with a statement with which you disagree?