Scott McMillan La Mesa Attorney , www.mcmillanlaw.us 4670 Nebo Drive, was found to be a vexatious litigant. A vexatious litigant is ‘”The constant suer…'" (In re Kinney (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 951, 957-958.) who clogs the courts with pro per lawsuts; the statute is to prevent the “persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number of groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts.” (Wolfe v.
Strankman (9th Cir.2004) 392 F.3d 358. It looks like Scott McMillan was found to be a vexatious litigant. In McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir.
2002) 31 F.App'x 371, 374. [Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No.
95-CV-3934TW(LAB). Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding.] “None of the three main episodes that McMillan offers supports granting a mistrial. McMillan first asserts that defense counsel violated the court's in limine ruling barring reference to McMillan as a "vexatious litigant" by referring to McMillan's other lawsuits in his opening statement.” I also found dozens of lawsuits where Scott McMillan, and the last attorney who will every work for him, Michelle Volk San Diego Attorney, was sued for malpractice.
These issues are very concerning where people believe an attorney has a great reputation.
Besides being a suspect in child molestation investigation, he fails in every respect as an attorney in my opinion. I hope this makes people who might consider hiring an attorney to truly review the background of the attorney since an attorney with a history of filing "groundless" cases, and being sued for malpractice, much less a report says Scott McMillan was mentioned in a molestation report, can only create suspicion with the the court and jurors.