Scott McMillan La Mesa

La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan - Poor performance, default notices, dismissed cases, and a graduate of an unaccredited law school located in a strip mall – Western Sierra School of Law. McMillan Law Firm qualifies in each category. The McMillan Law Firm somehow finds the courage to call itself a "leading" law firm, but has not been recognized by a single legal publication as leading in a field of law, except in record failure in the Court of Appeal, San Diego. Similar failure is found where McMillan operates The McMillan Academy of Law out of his office. To date, I cannot locate a single student or graduate who has passed the state bar exam.
 

Unfortunately, La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan's poor performance record doesn’t buy credit with the Court of Appeal, Division One [San Diego]. McMillan Law Firm could not afford the filing fee, which resulted in his client's case [D051843] being dismissed. Similarly, another appeal was dismissed after allowing McMillan Law Firm to cure the defect [Case # D051760]. Not only does it appear that Scott McMillan has lost every appeal in San Diego, and Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court, but the court has also noted numerous errors with the McMillan Law Firm:

"Because appellant did not timely pay the filing fee, the appeal is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(c)(5).)"
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1142678&doc_no=D051843

“Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).”    10/12/0

“Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.”  10/31/07

“Received default notice 8.120(a) desig. not filed.“    11/08/07

“Appellant was properly placed in default for failure to serve and file in superior court either a notice designating a reporter's transcript or a notice of intent to proceed without a reporter's transcript as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.130(a). After failure to cure the default, appellant was served with a Notice of Failure to Clear Default by superior court on November 6, 2007. Appellant having failed to clear the default or make application to this court for relief, the appeal is DISMISSED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.140(a)(1).)”

“Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.” 1/21/08

“Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.” 5/1/08

“The judgment is affirmed.” [aka loss] 11/25/08

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1142418&doc_no=D051814

"Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief." 6/8/11

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1963090&doc_no=D058640

"Order denying petition filed" 6/10/10

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1944723&doc_no=D057434

"Dismissal order filed." 11/30/10

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1943158&doc_no=D057337

“Application for waiver of filing fee filed.” 3/26/10

“Fee waiver request denied.” 3/29/10

“Order denying petition filed.” 4/9/10

“Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.” 6/9/10

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1938366&doc_no=D057042

“Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).” 2/4/10

“Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.” 2/18/10

“Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.” 10/27/10

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1933392&doc_no=D056716

"Order denying petition filed." 9/18/09

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1916473&doc_no=D055651

"Default re: 8.130(b) rptrs fees not deposited rcvd. dtd."6/23/09

"Appellant's application to file an oversize brief of 24,361 words is DENIED. Appellant has not shown good cause to file an opening brief in excess of the 14,000 word limit. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204 (c)(1) and 8.50(b); all rule references are to the California Rules of Court.) Appellant's opening brief and appellant's appendix are RETURNED UNFILED. Appellant is directed to REMOVE all attachments to the opening brief which do not comply with Rule 8.204(d)." 1/28/10 [must be very embarrassing to presume the court will grant your motion, then have it all returned to you!]

"Petition for review denied in Supreme Court." 2/16/11

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1911109&doc_no=D055300

"Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief." 3/26/2009

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1383128&doc_no=D054292

"Abandonment of appeal filed in trial court." 3/3/09

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1382385&doc_no=D054217

“Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).” 10/4/07

“Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.140(a)(1).” 1/10/08

“Appeal dismissed per rule 8.140(b).” 2/5/08

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1141858&doc_no=D051760

Read More

The-McMillan-LawFirm "No Experience Necessary" La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan

Scott McMillan seeks out qualified applicants to represent his clients.

Required experience. NONE! Job Qualifications per Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm:

"Litigation Associate Trainee No experience is necessary for this position. In fact, we encourage candidates that are just starting their careers to apply." http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/careers/

A recent review of popular lawcrossing , indicates every lawyer position offered needs some experience. However, it appears Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm doesn't! I don't believe a client is like a science project.

Read More

Scott-McMillan False Statements and High Loss Rate

I recently found some disturbing representations by La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan who practices in the San Diego Superior Court and Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Some of them include "We are a results oriented law firm" and "The McMillan Law Firm, APC is San Diego's leading business litigation, employment law, and real estate litigation law firm..."- The McMillan Law Firm. Respectfully, if Scott McMillan's "results oriented" objective is to lose every appeal and writ petition, and lead through failure, then no doubt Scott McMillan is your guy.

I see nothing indicating any recent great success by Scott McMillan in the trial court to be deemed a "leading business litigation" firm, or any success in the appellate court. This could be due to the fact Scott McMillan graduated from an unaccredited law school [Western Sierra School of Law], that at the time was tucked away behind a car dealership in a strip mall [now relocated to a different strip mall], or simply bad lawyering. However, in an effort to inform and protect consumers, I believe parsing out fact from fiction is important prior to embracing the representations of any professional. Similarly, Scott McMillan operates the McMillan Academy of Law, however doesn't have a single student to my knowledge or single graduate who has passed the State Bar exam - thus how can there be a school without a student?

Of course, this blog is not associated with Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm, located next to the railroad tracks (literally) at 4670 Nebo Drive La Mesa, CA 91941. If this site was associated with The McMillan Law Firm of La Mesa, California, then no doubt you would not hear about what appears to be Scott McMillan's 100% Loss Rate in the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One [San Diego]. This blog concerns of what appears to be Scott McMillan proclaiming his appellate and business litigation expertise, but failing to provide any record of succeeding in a single appeal or writ petition, inasmuch demonstrating The McMillan Law Firm is a “leading” firm in any field.

Indeed, appellate law is specialized, needs intelligence, and success can be obtained. Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber  boasts what Scott McMillan cannot: appellate success. "Our lawyers have litigated literally hundreds of appellate cases in their legal careers. Our lawyers' experience includes presenting 47 arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States (with a record of 36 wins, 8 defeats, 2 split decisions, and 1 decision pending)." 

Tellingly, appellate firm, Horvitz & Levy, winning track record takes up multiple pages of its website, http://horvitzlevy.com/news/wins.cfm just as leading appellate firm, Greines Martin Stein & Richland, also needs plenty of room to list its recent wins, http://www.gmsr.com/news_wins.cfm But The McMillan Law Firm doesn't need any space for I cannot locate any appellate wins.

In my humble opinion, holding yourself out to be an appellate attorney, but failing to have won any appeals is a dangerous combination and may constitute misrepresenting credentials to clients. In short, people seek out attorneys who succeed, Scott McMillan appears to fail his clients with every appeal or writ filed. Of course not every appeal is won, however the fact Scott McMillan holds himself out to be an appellate attorney, being "results oriented" and a "leading business litigation" firm then that's where I think a used car salesmen looks more reputable compared to Scott McMillan.

Could it be due to the fact Scott McMillan graduated from a strip mall law school, holds no specialization certification in appellate law, or his past associate graduated from a similar non-ABA law (online) school? What's peculiar is that Scott McMillan publishes fearnotlaw.com, that publishes other appellate cases, but does not post his own cases -- maybe it's due to the fact it appears Scott McMillan lost all of his cases. But I could be wrong. I encourage you to review the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One's website  and enter Scott McMillan's name [attorney section] to review what the court decided in each of Scott McMillan's 40+ appeals and writ petitions.

* NOTE: To be fair and insure the accuracy of this blog, Scott McMillan was offered the opportunity to provide any information on any appeal he prevailed on. In lieu of replying with a single win, Scott McMillan used profanity when informed of this blog.

Coming up next, Rebeca McMillan, daughter, and Scott's apparent criminal record and pro per litigation. But for now, see what appears to be Scott McMillan's current losses: But for now, see what appears to be Scott McMillan's current losses:

Court of Appeal, District Fourt, Division One

D057434
37-2009-00066655-CU-WT-CTL Robbins v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Roadone West, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D057337
37-2009-00150168-PR-TR-NC Bridgeman v. Allen Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D057042
37-2009-00066655-CU-WT-CTL Robbins v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Roadone West Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D056716
GIE034575 Riley v. Valencia Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D055651
37-2008-00099933-CU-OR-EC Morton v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Spotts et al.
Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D055300
GIC869645 Rocha v. Vu et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D054290
GIE034575 Riley v. Valencia et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D054292
GIE034576 Riley v. Valencia et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D054217
37-2007-00068318-CU-WM-CTL Scott et al. v. City of Coronado et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D054166
GIN054512 Ryan v. Idearc Media Sales - West, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D053817
GIC805629 Mancinelli v. Siewak Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D053060
GIN054512 Ryan v. Idearc Media Sales - West, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D052103
GIC734991 Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D052087
GIC787977 Lytwyn v. Fry et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D051843
37-2007-00065007-CU-OE-CTL Hernandez v. Max's 99 Cents Stores, Inc.
Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D051814
GIC789990 Erickson et al. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc., et al.
Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D051760
GIC842615 DeFrench et al. v. L&L Photo Marine, Inc., et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D051591
GIC805629 Mancinelli v. Siewak et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D049254
GIC842615 Defrench et al. v. Meyer Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D049049
GIS23771 Nevarez v. Big Rock Holdings Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D048170
CN207821 The People v. Callender Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D047318
GIC833749 Bivens v. Banner Bedding, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D045557
GIC832910 Bivens v. Gallery Corporation Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D044754
GIN021858 Svane et al. v. Rysewyk et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D044746
GIN021858 Svane et al. v. Rysewyk et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D044732
GIC805629 Mancinelli v. Siewak et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D044081
GIN024532 Tri-City Medical Center et al. v. Chonlada Jinatongthai Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D043407
GIC802976 Bivens v. Corel Corporation Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D043079
734991 Fry's Electronics, Inc. v. Apex Wholesale, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D042519
GIE15152 Burnett v. Solid Goods Corporation Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D042401
GIC787977 Lytwyn v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D042075
GIC789990 Bivens v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D041383
GIC734991 Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D039929
734991 Fry's Electronics, Inc. v. Apex Wholesale, Inc. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, A.P.C.
D039838
GIC779299 Simmons et al. v. City of San Diego et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
D039276
GIC734991 Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al. Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

D039272
GIC734991 Apex Wholesale, Inc. et al. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al.
The McMillan Law Firm, APC

California Supreme Court Cases [ Confirm losses with California Supreme Court. ]

S188821
D055300 GIC869645 Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
ROCHA v. VU
 
S186582
D056716 GIE034575 Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
RILEY v. VALENCIA 

S181985
D057042 37-2009-00066655-CU-WT-CTL Scott A. McMillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
ROBBINS v. S.C. (ROADONE WEST) 
S169518
D051814 GIC789990 Scott A. Mcmillan
McMillan Law Firm
ERICKSON v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS

S140396
D045557 GIC832910 Scott A. Mcmillan
McMillan Law Firm
BIVENS v. GALLERY CORPORATION 

S133075
D042401 GIC787977 Scott A. Mcmillan
McMillan Law Firm
LYTWYN v. FRYS ELECTRONICS 

S132695
D043407 GIC802976 Scott A. Mcmillan
The McMillan Law Firm, APC
BIVENS v. COREL CORPORATION 

S109526
F039338 00CECG10238 Scott A. Mcmillan
The McMillan Law Firm
FLORES v. S.C. (DECKER FORD) 

S105897
Scott A. Mcmillan
The McMillan Law Firm
BIVENS (SHERITA) ON H.C.

Read More