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.