Unethical Conduct by Scott McMillan of La Mesa

Scott McMillan , The-McMillan-Law-Firm, La Mesa, Ca, sued and loses in the trial court andon appeal. The Court of Appeal found he, in short, lied in his legal papers by 'mischaracterizing' events in the trial court. Legal malpractice, poor performance, default notices, dismissed cases, and a graduate of an unaccredited law school located in a strip mall, oh, and Dean of his own law school McMillan Academy of Law. La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan, 4670 Nebo Dr #200, La Mesa, CA 91941.

 

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Scott A. McMILLAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. SCME MORTGAGE BROKERS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

                               No. D052572. | (Super.Ct.No. GIE023637). | March 13, 2009.

“The McMillans first contend that the court erred in finding that SCME prevailed on their cause of action for injunctive relief, arguing that only a defendant in whose favor a dismissal of the entire action is given qualifies as the prevailing party under section 1032, subdivision (a)(4). This argument, however, mischaracterizes the court’s ruling.

The trial court did not declare SCME to be the prevailing party in the entire action, but merely noted that SCME did prevail in the action to the extent that the McMillans dismissed their injunctive relief cause of action. The court’s finding that SCME prevailed in part in the action established that the second sentence of section 1032, subdivision (a)(4) was applicable, giving the court the discretion to determine whether there was any prevailing party in the action and whether to “allow costs or not” to either party.

Based on the uncontroverted evidence in the record that the McMillans dismissed their claim for injunctive relief against SCME, the court did not abuse its discretion in making this finding.”

McMillan Law Firm also tried to increase a potential fee award by unethically and needlessly increasing his expenses:

“The fact that the McMillans chose to propound extensive discovery on SCME despite its verified responses does not change the fact that SCME was a nominal party and in any event, as the McMillans essentially admit in their opening brief, their $4,724.38 cost memorandum was for the costs they incurred to succeed on their quiet title cause of action in its entirety.”

Read More

Scott McMillan Friends with Child Molester

La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan, http://www.scottmcmillan.us/4670 Nebo Dr #200, La Mesa, CA 91941. Legal malpractice, poor performance, default notices, dismissed cases, and a graduate of an unaccredited law school located in a strip mall, oh, and Dean of his own law school McMillan Academy of Law.

2010 WL 5649933 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Ken BOURKE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Verena CASTANEDA, Defendant and Respondent.

No. D057870.

December 14, 2010.

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00101195-CU-FR-CTL)

Appeal from an Order of the Superior Court, County of San Diego Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr. Judge (Superior Court Judge)

As best put by Respondent’s attorneys summarize: 

“Additionally, Appellant requests this to court order the reimbursement of his legal fees for the assistance from “associated supporting legal counsel attorney Shaun McMillan, Esq., attorney Scott McMillan, Esq., attorney Jim McMillan, Esq., $10,000 each, to McMillan Law LLP for legal assistance, counsel and services.” *17 (sic) (Opening Brief, 47). This characterization of the facts is misleading and the requests by Appellant have no legal support.”^[1]

 

Appellant‘s representation for fees by, collectively, the McMillan‘s, including The McMillan Law Firm, provided legal advice and silent representation to Appellant. Tellingly, such a representation to the court that would violate the law by the McMillan’s for ghostwriting Appellant’s brief and would violate newly enacted Bus. & Prof. Code § 6400, and applied to attorneys under § 6401

The Appellant, Kenneth Bourke, San Diego realtor, does not simply request fees for a cursory reading of his brief, a minor edit, or simplistic research, but demands $30,000 which can only for actual legal representation. Of course, California recognizes that lending “some assistance to friends, family members, and others with whom he or she may want to share specialized knowledge” is common place. Ricotta v. State of Cal. 4 F.Supp.2d 961, 987 (S.D.Cal., 1998), but with an uncommonly high legal bill analogous to what is usually incurred for prosecuting an appeal, it cannot be said the purported fees is for some ‘friendly advice.’

By McMillan providing legal services to warrant payment is unethical. “Ghostwriting is frowned upon.” Nasrichampang v. Woodford 2006 WL 3932924 at *1. (S.D.Cal 2006); See Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1271-73 (10th Cir.2001) (holding that “any ghostwriting of an otherwise pro se brief must be acknowledged by the signature of the attorney involved [ ]”); Ricotta v. California, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, 985-88 (S.D.Cal.1998). California state courts model their sanction rules after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. See Levy v. Blum, supra, Cal.App.4th at 636 (“the Legislature revised the procedures for sanctions by enacting section 128.7 in ‘an effort to largely bring California sanctions practice into line with rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.’ ”).

It should also be noted the McMillan’s close relationship with Ken Bourke who was arrested for childmolestation and Scott McMillan’s father’s close social ties to Bourke while frequenting Tijuana with Bourke in the early 90’s. Tijuana is well known for child prostitution. Nonetheless, Bourke’s past is not low enough for the McMillan’s to not distance themselves from him.

And yes, Bourke, with the help of the McMillan’s lost his anti-SLAPP appeal.

---

^[1][1]   See Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, Case No. D057870.

Read More

The McMillan Law Firm Loses Half Million Dollar Attorney Fee Request

La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan, http://www.scottmcmillan.us/ 4670 Nebo Dr #200, La Mesa, CA 91941, The McMillan Law Firm.  Lost his request for over a half million dollars. Yes he wins a little, but he loses BIG!!

2004 WL 5351882 (Cal.Superior) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)

Superior Court of California,

Central Division (Hall of Justice).

San Diego County

Ozzie MANCINELLI, an individual, Plaintiff,

v.

Kathleen SIEWAK, an individual; Ferdinand Barlow, an individual, Rustie’s Unique Designs, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendants.

No. GIC 805629.

Michelle D. Volk	$185	340.48	$ 62,988.80
Thomas McKinney	$185	2.00	$ 370.00
Kenneth Hamilton	$185	42.60	$ 7,881.00
Alvin Kalmanson	$350	2.22	$ 777.00
Law Clerks	$75	34.05	$ 2,553.75
SubTotal		1286.20	$ 290,783.05
Fee enhancement	2x		$ 290,783.05
Total Fee Request			$ 581,566.10

Read More