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LOSS: Morton v. Spotts, Case Number D058640, 05/31/2013, “(Signed Unpublished) The judgment is affirmed.”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

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