Regarding lawyers, the one thing I have observed here (and on other forums) for the past few years is that no lawyer ever offers specific advice on anything for which he could charge for... Most notably, nothing is said on actual cases of alleged ANO breaches which the said lawyer must have dealt with countless times, yet the pilot forums are packed with "is this legal" speculation.
There is the obvious comment that all they have to sell is their time - if they gave opinions gratuitously it would be bad for business.
However, there are other good reasons.
It is surprisingly how often people don’t tell the whole story. Sometimes this is because they consider there are elements that are inconsequential (when in fact they are not) and sometimes they know full well it is not helpful to their case. Proper enquiry often solicits the whole story. There is of course an obvious danger giving an opinion based on incorrect information.
Professional bodies and indemnity insurers take a dim view of gratuitous opinions. Whilst I am not suggesting you could get sued giving an opinion on an anonymous forum there have been some surprising cases where opinions have been given without any fee changing hands and yet the advisor was still found negligent, when his opinion was incorrect.
Finally in many professional arenas, as for that matter commercial arenas, those involved devise arrangements or obtain opinions or clearances which they know if you arrange your affairs in certain ways gives you a legal advantage - an age old reason for employing first class advisors. Not surprisingly this knowledge comes at a price and being cynical if proffered for mass consumption will sometimes result in the law being amended even sooner.
I recall a comment I like, it is not the ten minutes the consultant takes to remove the cataract, but the thirty years he spent learning how to do it properly.
The original definition of a professional was one who gives of his time without necessarily giving consideration to his fee - we would all wish the doctor would stop and render assistance in circumstances of urgent need - but perhaps sadly the world has turned a few more times since then.
So far as this case is concerned in the first instance you should avoid lawyers at all cost - becasue it will be costly and the courts are littered with individuals who should have resolved their differences without recourse to court.
Often a great deal can be solved by the parties agreeing to meet with an independent person in attendance (in this case another pilot who is either chairman or a member of another group). Both individuals then have a proper opportunity to set out their grievances and both will benefit from an impartial third party opinion.
Well worth a try.