Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Alert

It is important to know about San Diego attorney Scott McMillan since he has a long history of fraud allegations and losing major cases, even where he represents himself. I mean if he can't represent himself and loses, how can you have faith he can represent your interests? 

Another negative about hiring an attorney like Scott McMillan La Mesa attorney is that jurors often Google the attorney who is before them. On one hand you have an accomplished defense attorney who likely clerked for a judge, graduated from an ABA law school, then you have plaintiff's attorney > Scott McMillan San Diego attorney who appears to have lost every major case in the last several years, been laughed at by judges as noted below, has a criminal record as found on San Diego Superior Court index, a law school shut down for basically fraud, and public records alleging he took part in molestation - see it for yourself: 

A few of the major setbacks of Scott McMillan appear to include (please confirm with court records about the status of any of cases below as I would hate to get sued by Scott McMillan - albeit he naturally would lose, but still haha): 

2015: Lycurgan, Inc. v. Todd JonesFiled (ATF Chief), Ninth Cir., Case No. 15-55228, SDCA Case No. 3:14- cv-01424 [court found appeal filed by Scott McMillan to be without merit and dismissed case]

2016: Brightwell v. The McMillan Law Firm, Scott McMillan, Michelle Volk, Southern District of California Case 16-CV-1696 W (NLS) [Scott McMillan sued for fraud];

2016: Lycurgan, Inc. v. Todd Jones (ATF Chief) Case3:14-cv-01679-JLS-BGS ) [judges literally laughed at Scott McMillan’s argument and one judge called the case “just silly” see oral argument]

2018: McMillan v. Chaker SDCA Case No. 3:16-cv-02186 [Scott McMillan represented himself and lost federal lawsuit to remove child molestation report and other public records from internet – case dismissed see order];

2018: State Bar of California shuts down McMillan Academy of Law [after finding it never had a single graduate, law books out of date by years, and only three students enrolled in twelve years - see partial report below and full report here]

2019: Scott McMillan SanDiego attorney was sued yet again for FRAUD in De La Flor v. Scott McMillan San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2019-00038026-CU-FR-CTL [Scott McMillan sued for Fraud];

2019 Ochoa et al. v. Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc. et al. Case No. F073978 [Scott McMillan  lost wrongful death lawsuit after filing it in the wrong county, then lost the appeal];

2020: McMillan v. Chaker Ninth Circuit Case No.: 17-56676 [Scott McMillan San Diego attorney appeals when he lost lawsuit to remove public records and loses appeal too].

Read More

San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan Lost Appeal

A report about San Diego attorney Scott McMillan , McMillan Law Firm, La Mesa, is contained in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-0036344, and details how Scott McMillan’s involvement in sexual molestation of a child. The report has many detailed accounts and references to Scott McMillan very specifically.

Scott McMillan San Diego attorney filed a federal lawsuit under RICO to have numerous blogs posts removed from various websites. The judge dismissed the lawsuit finding it was frivolous. See civil RICO ruling. Scott McMillan filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit  and his opening brief did not address issues such as the total absence of any indictable conduct where McMillan chiefly alleges defamation but that does not fall under the RICO law.Recently, Scott McMillan , lost an appeal and also lost his effort for a gag order to stop the publication of the child molestation report and publishing his dozens of losses in court. See images below.

Legal problems for San Diego attorney Scott McMillan continue to be revealed in public records. For example, fraud allegations were made by a well known law firm against Scott McMillan in federal court in Brightwell v. The McMillan Law Firm, Scott McMillan, Michelle Volk, Southern District of California Case 16-CV-1696 W (NLS).

The State Bar of California issued a serious blow to Scott McMillan who also runs a law school out of his small office near the railroad tracks in east San Diego. The 2017 State Bar Report clearly infers a law school with three students and no graduates is nothing more than a scam:

As a result, and as confirmed by the inspection, MAOL is noncompliant as to three material requirements: Its law library is noncompliant since its hardcopy legal authorities have not been updated since 2013; without any tuition income, the law school’s current and future financial viability appears questionable; and its website and written materials offer outdated and misleading information to both the general public and potential applicants.”

See entire State Bar Report about McMillan Academy of Law here.

Scott McMillan was also labeled a vexatious litigant in McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir. 2002) 31 F.App’x 371, 374, a label the appellate court did not find was abusive. Also, in 2017 Scott McMillan was found to have lied to a court and failed to file an opposition to the allegation. See Scott McMillan motion for sanctions.

Update: McMillan v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2020) 791 F.App'x 666, is a case where Scott McMillan sued Darren Chaker. San Diego attorney Scott McMillan sued Darren Chaker and demanded in part the court order him to remove online content that published a report about Scott McMillan being named in a report about child molestation see report as filed in court anti-SLAPP motion. On January 27, 2020, the Ninth Circuit appeals court rejected every argument of Scott McMillan and affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by Scott McMillan. Darren Chaker’s appellate attorney is former Los Angeles federal judge Stephen Larson.

Read More

Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Failure Rate

Scott McMillan San Diego attorney, who also operates the McMillan Academy of Law out of his small office in east San Diego by railroad tracks. Scott McMillan has had a rough 2018, but it’s been a rough time for Scott McMillan in his multiple failing careers. In Scott McMillan v. Rudy Camacho  43 F.3d 1479 (9th Cir. 1994) the court REJECTED all of three arguments:

“McMillan contends the district court erred by concluding that he failed to show the possibility of irreparable harm. We reject the argument.” The court continued to state, “In his underlying action, McMillan alleged that the Customs Service is attempting to prevent him from practicing his new career as a customhouse broker by unreasonably seizing his property.”

However, the court rejected the argument of San Diego attorney Scott McMillan:

“Here, because McMillan has failed even to allege any hindrance which would prevent either his family members or his employers from protecting their own interests, the district court properly concluded that McMillan lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction on their behalf….We deny McMillan's motion to strike the Government's supplemental excerpts of record. We also deny Appellee's "Motion to Dismiss due to Mootness."

There is little question Scott McMillan is a San Diegoattorney who has filed in excess of 115 appeals and writs and lost virtually all of them. It is a horrific track record for an attorney I believe who claims to be an appellate “expert” while the only thing Scott McMillan La Mesa seems to have is an expertise of bringing shame and embarrassment to his clients I presume.

Many attorneys who claim to be an appellate specialist have very high success rates. For example, one California law firm boasts that, “Overall, our lawyers have won reversals nearly three times as often as the average appellant. When defending judgments, we’ve prevailed eighty percent of the time.” See law firm statistics here.

Other attorneys who claim to be experts in California appeals have gained recognition by neutral third parties as being some of the best. For example, another law firm who considers itself as an appellate specialist,

“GMSR is ranked among the best appellate law firms by organizations and publications including Reuters, Chambers and Partners USA, California Lawyer Magazine, and the Daily Journal.  Notable awards and honors include:

Chambers and Partners USA — Consecutively ranks GMSR Band 1 in California for Litigation: Appellate Law.

U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers© — Ranked GMSR as a Tier 1 law firm in the 2018 Edition of “Best Law Firms.”

California Lawyer Magazine — GMSR’s appellate attorneys have received the prestigious California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award six times for major contributions to development of the law.

Reuters — Named GMSR partner Timothy Coates one of the “Top Petitioners” in the United States Supreme Court, based on his success in having review granted in that Court.

Daily Journal — Included GMSR in its list of the top boutique law firms in 2014.

National Law Journal — Included GMSR on its Appellate Hot List in 2013.

Best Lawyers in America — Consecutively ranks GMSR’s lawyers and named seven to its list for appellate law in 2019.

Super Lawyers — Selected eight of GMSR’s partners to the 2018 Southern California Super

Lawyers list and two GMSR associates to the Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars list in 2018.”

The above can be seen at https://www.gmsr.com/about/awards-and-recognition/

However, although San Diego attorney Scott McMillan claims to be a “leading” San Diego attorney with his office in La Mesa (an east San Diego community), the fact remains he has never been and never will gain for having the success rate real, accomplished attorneys have. At least I do not believe he will, but who knows.

Read More

Major Loss for Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney

San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan, who is also Dean of the McMillan Academy of Law, in La Mesa was recently defeated in a San Diego federal court by Darren Chaker. Scott McMillan , La Mesa, filed the lawsuit under the federal RICO Act. RICO is reserved for criminal enterprises, typically making up of a gang structure, where gang members are committing crimes for the enterprise (gang). However, the complaint Scott McMillan filed primarily alleged acts of defamation that somehow precluded him from practicing law. Scott McMillan’s primary objective was to use RICO’s injunctive relief to order search engines to remove blog posts highlighting his numerous losses, sanctions, lawsuit for legal malpractice, and involvement in a child molestation investigation that was a contained in a report.  

Scott McMillan failed to allege claims for defamation likely since most of the statute of limitations expired, so made false allegations he believed would support a RICO case. Possibly Scott McMillan San Diego attorney was too busy defending against federal fraud allegations where the victim claims she was defrauded by Scott McMillan and former associate Michelle Volk. The victim-plaintiff also stated she was forced to work off a legal bill by working for The McMillan Law Firm , La Mesa , for free! The federal court refused to dismiss the case against Scott McMillan, see order. 

Possibly, Dean Scott McMillan was busy attempting to locate a single student who could graduate from his law school. In December 2017, the State Bar of California stated the law school, in essence, was nothing less than a fraud, having only three students in over a decade, not a single graduate, and law books that were not updated in years – not to mention the law school operates out of the small McMillan Law Firm office, and does not have a sign saying a law school even exists.  See the report here.

Although there are numerous flaws to the RICO lawsuit, the most glaring is the first element -to allege an enterprise. Scott McMillan failed to allege such in any respect. Specifically, the enterprise consisted of nothing more than several lawsuits that were filed against debt collectors. That’s right, debt collectors who refused to stop calling, were collecting on another person’s debt, and doing the things debt collectors are notorious for doing, were sued! Although Scott McMillan was not a party to any of the lawsuits, nor did he defend any of the debt collectors, the fact is: not a single case in United States would support such a theory – such did not stop Scott McMillan from making the meritless claim. (Feel free to review the US DOJ's RICO Manual here and let me know if you find support for Scott McMillan's theory!)

Even if the enterprise was legally cognizable, the fact is Scott McMillan was not a ‘victim’ of the enterprise. The RICO plaintiff must show that he was the intended target of the RICO scheme. See W.L. Meng v. Schwartz, 116 F. Supp. 2d 92, 95 (D. D.C. 2000) (finding that within the context of RICO a RICO plaintiff must be the “intended target of the RICO violation”) quoting In re Am. Express,  39  F.3d  395,  400  (2d  Cir.  1994) Hence, by alleging third party debt collectors created the enterprise, and Scott McMillan was not a debt collector, he could not have been a “victim” to have had standing to sue. Although this one issue is enough to embarrass the legal prophet Scott McMillan, I will go into a couple of additional issues.

Although Scott McMillan alleged the lawsuits were meritless or designed to force debt collectors to settle – even if such was true, RICO  cases have found "the filing of meritless litigation, or even malicious prosecution, is [**34]  not a predicate RICO act." FindTheBest.com, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68508, 2014 WL 2050610, at *4 (collecting cases). (Kerik v. Tacopina (S.D.N.Y. 2014) 64 F. Supp. 3d 542, 561-562.) Thus, laughably, even if the purported lawsuits were meritless, such would not constitute an enterprise – and even if they did – Scott McMillan was not a victim, thus would not have had standing to sue. 

The civil RICO complaint also failed to allege how the purported enterprise collected on “unlawful debt.” In Scott McMillan’s world, he alleged by suing debt collectors, then collecting settlement checks cut to the attorneys, such was an unlawful debt.  However, Congress defined  “unlawful debt” and the definition does not fit Scott McMillan’s definition. See, Section 1961(6) [proceeds must originate from gambling or loan sharking]. 

The RICO complaint alleged that Darren Chaker and the enterprise were one in the same. As a San Diego federal court decided in a different case, the merits of a claim under § 1962(c) turn on whether the "person" allegedly engaged in racketeering activity is different from the RICO enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. If there is no difference between the two, the claim fails. (Chi Pham v. Capital Holdings, Inc. (S.D.Cal. Aug. 9, 2011, No. 10cv0971-LAB (AJB)) 2011 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 89047, at *1.) Here, Scott McMillan is incapable of sustaining a RICO action since the defendant(s) are not an enterprise. 

Additionally, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan failed to allege a single dollar was lost as a result of the enterprise. "[A]bsent damages, the RICO claim cannot be sustained," and the bank had "failed to make a showing of actual injury" (Oscar v. University Students Co-Operative Ass'n (9th Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 783, 790.). Allegations concerning Scott McMillan’s loss of income from phantom RICO acts resulted in reputational harm to his law firm. To the extent the loss of future income is alleged to be attributed to the damage to a plaintiff's reputation, such losses are not compensable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1961-1968.  (Lauter v. Anoufrieva (C.D.Cal. 2008) 642 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1070.) 

Another failure of Scott McMillan’s RICO case is his inability to "allege facts tending to show that [they were] injured by the use or investment of racketeering income." Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas and Electric Co., 981 F.2d 429, 437 (9th Cir. 1992). It is likely the complaint could not make such an allegation since it did not have an enterprise, thus could not have been injured by the debt collector suing enterprise.

Once Scott McMillan filed this frivolous lawsuit, a team of attorneys were hired from Los Angeles. Not San Diego where most attorneys play nice nice due to the small legal community, but Los Angeles attorneys who employ scorched earth tactics to secure a win. The federal court provided that win when it dismissed the laughable lawsuit in full. The judge literally laughed at Scott McMillan. However, since Scott McMillan is smarter than everyone, he decided to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Darren Chaker then hired the litigation powerhouse of Hanson Bridgett to defend the appeal  including the chair of the appellate department. 

To add icing on the frivolous lawsuit cake San Diego attorney Scott McMillan baked, he re-filed the identical lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court.  Darren Chaker then employed the Los Angeles office of Manning Kass which often defends police departments in high stakes litigation. On March 9, 2018, the Superior Court issued a stay preventing Scott McMillan from further wasting resources of the court while he pursues his appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The last time the legal wizard was before the Ninth Circuit was in 2017 where the senior judge called his lawsuit “silly” and “not based on principle”. See video clip here. 

Two lawsuits and 18 months later, two judges have not found a single act of defamation took place. Scott McMillan's frivolous lawsuit was designed to chill speech and remove material from the internet. If a lawsuit could get a handicap placard this case would qualify for one.  The lawsuit was defeated before it was filed.

Read More