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State Bar of California shuts down McMillan Academy of Law [after finding it never had a single graduate, law books out of date by years, and only three students enrolled in twelve years - see partial report below and full report here]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

Scott McMillan Suspect in Molestation

Scott McMillan – McMillan Law Firmof La Mesa, and who operates the McMillan Academy of Lawout of his office without a single graduate passing the bar, can now add alleged sex offenses committed against his daughter. An alarming new report, a public record, was discovered describing sex acts with his daughter. The report states in part, 

MCMILLAN stated he would invite his niece, daughter of SCOTT ANTHONY MCMILLAN, over to perform “sexual favors” for money since “she will end up being a whore anyways and why not train her now” as she “was a perfect age for grooming.” MCMILLAN also indicated he and his sons (all three attorneys) would perform legal work for BOURKE as trade for sexual favors with his minor daughter.

This is very concerning due to the prior post that Kenneth Bourke is a documented longtime friend of the McMillan family as seen in my former post, http://scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com/2014/09/scott-mcmillan-molest-la-mesa.html

 

Scott McMillan falsely states he is one of San Diego’s “Leading Law Firms” however is not ranked by any legal industry publication, or even a local news paper. One of the specialties of the McMillan Law Firm are appeals, however, the law firm lost virtually every appeal – see http://scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com/2011/06/wwwmcmillanlawus-scott-mcmillan-law.htmlA few more recent losses include: 

LOSS + McMillan Client to pay costs in Bridgeman v. Allen et al. Case No. D062183 08/30/2014: Opinion filed. (Signed Published) The judgment is affirmed. Objector and Respondent is entitled to her costs on appeal.

HUGE LOSS: Sterling v. Tri-City Healthcare District, D059810, 05/31/2013, “In her cross-appeal, Sterling contends the court erred in denying her attorney fees motion because her successful defense of the petitions vindicated an important right affecting the public interest and conferred a substantial benefit on the general public.  We determine the court properly applied applicable law and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting these arguments.” Very heavily litigated case with the hopes of attorney’s fees. McMillan filed six different appeals in this case. However, despite such efforts, no victory, no money.

LOSS: Morton v. Spotts, Case Number D058640, 05/31/2013, “(Signed Unpublished) The judgment is affirmed.”

LOSS: Robbins v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Roadone West, Inc. Case Number D057434, 06/10/2010, “Order denying petition filed.”

LOSS: Bridgeman v. Allen, Case Number D057337, 11/30/2010, “Dismissal order filed.”

Further, the Court of Appeal in San Diego found Scott McMillan basically lied to the court and sought to run up his attorney fees, http://scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com/2014/09/michelle-volk-scott-mcmillan.html

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