1.1K views
New Reviewer
40 comments

The-McMillan-Law-Firm, Scott McMillan, 4670 Nebo Drive, La Mesa, CA 91941 operates his firm and claims to be a "leading" litigation attorney. But http://www.scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com shows Scott McMillan misrepesents to the public he is "leading" in any area other than losses. 50 LOSSES, one win, and this attorney represents to the public his firm is a "leading" firm in San Diego! (?) If The McMillan Law Firm is a "leading" firm and has lost every case on appeal, then who's the worst law firm?

I am tiered of attorneys alleging they have a high success rates and misrepresents to the public standing within the legal community to tempt clients to walk through his door. This might just be such the case with Scott-McMillan-La-Mesa

Scott McMillan also operates the McMillan-Academy-of-Law www.maol.info - but from my research on CalBar.org appears to not have a single graduate per the state bar who has passed the bar exam recently. Scott McMillan runs his 'law school' out of his office 50 feet from train tracks (not the ideal place to study nor prestigious school). Have not found a single graduate who has passed the bar exam. Scott McMillan also went to an unaccredited law school, which was located behind a car dealership at the time.

In sum, watch out who you hire before they represent you. Make sure the attorney has a winning, or decent, track record.

Location: San Diego, California

Do You Have Something To Say ?
Write a review

Comments

chat-icon

Please avoid publishing any personal information and promotional content

You will be automatically registered on our site. Username and password will be sent to you via email.
Post Comment
Guest

Attorney Scott McMillan has coordinated and worked with Defend East County, a still-permitted (still not a federally defined hate group) racially motivated and violent hate group. Be mindful of Attorney McMillanโ€™s connections should your involvement with him mouth your own legal and security interests at risk.

Guest

Unaccredited law school?

Guest

A few of the most recent loses by Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm , in La Mesa, California.

โ€ข Williams v. Nordstrom, Inc., SD Sup Ct.

37-2014-****7604-CU-CR-CTL, Plaintiff and his counsel, were sanctioned nearly $16,000 for discovery abuse; case on appeal.

โ€ข Williams v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Nordstrom, Inc., D068765, 37-2014-****7604-CU-CR-CTL (writ denied)

โ€ข McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. v.

The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc. 37-2014-****4953-CU-BT-CTL, D067610 (writ denied) [law firm posted its OWN reviews]

โ€ข Plikaytis v. Fairmont, L.P.

et al. Case Number D066876 (lost appeal)

scottmc63

Let's see that list. Oh, wait.

No such list exists.

The McMillan Law Firm does well for its clients.

The fact that someone went to the trouble to anonymously post such garbage reflects some hard feelings. The best that this poster can do is post lies, because that is all they have.

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of scottmc63

McMillan Law Firm La Mesa, Scott McMillan Attorney, does indeed VERY well for his clients - so well he gets sued for malpractice!

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1214363

And sometimes people don't want to pay for the benefits they have received in the course of litigation and use the court process to resolve their claims. That's what the courts are for, to work out disputes. Just because there is an allegation, like those false ones posted by fraudster convict Darren Chaker, doesn't make it so.

Here is Chaker's conviction for bankruptcy fraud:

http://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/link.php?action=detail&id=147

scottmc63

Pay your debts and quit whining on the Internet.

scottmc63

The person who posted this is Darren Chaker, a convicted felon, who is sore about his loss in Chaker v. Mateo.

Here is the link to that case:

http://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/link.php?action=detail&id=151

Guest

A few of the most recent loses by Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm , in La Mesa, California.

โ€ข Williams v. Nordstrom, Inc., SD Sup Ct.

37-2014-****7604-CU-CR-CTL, Plaintiff and his counsel, were sanctioned nearly $16,000 for discovery abuse; case on appeal.

โ€ข Williams v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Nordstrom, Inc., D068765, 37-2014-****7604-CU-CR-CTL (writ denied)

โ€ข McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. v.

The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc. 37-2014-****4953-CU-BT-CTL, D067610 (writ denied) [law firm posted its OWN reviews]

โ€ข Plikaytis v. Fairmont, L.P.

et al. Case Number D066876 (lost appeal)

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1170197

The order of discovery sanctions in Nordstrom was reversed on appeal. See http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D069051.PDF

The McMillan Law Firm represented The McMillan Law Group in the case against Yelp.

Nobody posted false reviews. That case was dismissed.

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1170197

The order of discovery sanctions in Williams was reversed on appeal. See http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D069051.PDF

Writs are discretionary.

Very rarely granted.

The McMillan Law Firm did not post its own reviews. It represented the McMillan Law Group in the case against Yelp. Nobody posted their own reviews.

Yelp dismissed the case.

Yes, it is true, that ONE of the Plikaytis orders appealed was affirmed by the court of appeals. The firm prevailed on others in the Plikaytis cases.

Guest

I agree. I found this blog post about Scott McMillan

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1023465

You aren't a former client of The McMillan Law Firm, APC.

Guest

Scott-McMillan, The-McMillan-Law-Firm, family friend and child molester, any of McMillan's friends or couple of happy clients want to stick up for him? Would you want to associate yourself with a child molester? See, http://scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com/2014/09/scott-mcmillan-molest-la-mesa.html

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-891895

If you have some proof of this scandalous allegation, why have you not posted it? This is just a lie.

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-891895

That is a scandalous allegation posted by a coward that cannot point to any evidence to support that lie. Scott McMillan does not engage in any such activity.

Guest

Friends and a couple of happy clients can't argue with the below: Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm a liar, in polite terms (mischaracterizing), see http://scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com

Unethical Conduct by Scott McMillan After Suing Neighbor

Scott McMillan sues his neighbor and loses in the trial court and on 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, http://www.scottmcmillan.us/ 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.

โ€œThe 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 courtโ€™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 courtโ€™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 โ€œallow costs or notโ€ 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.โ€ McMillan also tried to increase a potential fee award by unethically needlessly increasing his expenses, โ€œThe 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.โ€

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-891891

SCME prevailed. But the other defendants lost. Notably, the McMillans succeeded on the quiet title claim.

scottmc63
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-891891

Where is the blogspot posting?

The court of appeal made no such finding that McMillan lied.

Guest

I hired Scott to represent me against a terrible person and he won that case for me. In fact, he did such a great job that our case made news on many websites.

He kicked a@# for me and for that, I am grateful.

The case he won for me gave me many sleepless nights until he took it over. There is no way I can thank him enough.

View more comments (20)

The Mcmillan Law Firm Reviews

  1. 4 reviews
  2. 2 reviews
  3. 0 reviews
  4. 0 reviews
  5. 2 reviews
The Mcmillan Law Firm reviews