Not resolved
1.0
Details
Customer service
Diversity of Products or Services
Price Affordability
Product or Service Quality
Reliability
Staff
Value for money
Website
1 comment

San Diego attorney Scott McMillan, La Mesa law firm, Michelle Volk, the associate, claimed on his website it was a “leading” litigation firm. The fact is, if “leading” means having lost virtually every appeal, and having a client sanctioned for $16,000 is what being a top firm, then The McMillan Law Firm is certainly “leading” the way.

Just the Court of Appeal in San Diego reports The McMillan Law Firm has litigated 69 cases. That excludes numerous writ petitions in the California Supreme Court. I have only been able to locate a few wins, but with such a horrific loss ratio, I hope this notices the public of the danger of taking a website at face value where an attorney misrepresents his status as a “leading” law firm, or an expert without substantial backing to support claim.

A few of the most recent loses,

• Williams v. Nordstrom, Inc., SD Sup Ct. 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL, Plaintiff and his counsel, were sanctioned nearly $16,000 for discovery abuse; case on appeal, see Case Number D069051

• Williams v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Nordstrom, Inc., D068765, 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL (writ denied)

• McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc. 37-2014-00004953-CU-BT-CTL, D067610 (writ denied) [law firm posted its OWN reviews]

• Plikaytis v. Fairmont, L.P. et al. Case Number D066876 (lost appeal)

• McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc.D067610

37-2014-00004953-CU-BT-CTL (case where law firm was sued by Yelp! for posting its OWN REVIEWS – lost writ petition)

• Kelegian v. Anders et al., Case Number D067328 (Transfer/certification denied)

• Williams v. Digius et al. Case No. D064183 (opposed defendant’s appeal and lost)

• Oceans Eleven Casino v. Anders, Case Number S219395 (lost California Supreme Court case)

• Bridgeman v. Allen et al., Case Number D062183 (lost appeal AND McMillan’s client forced to pay costs of respondent)

• Morton v. Spotts, Case Number D058640 (McMillan lost appeal – his client lost at trial and found liable for $15,000)

Real, well-educated attorneys (McMillan graduated from a small unknown school behind a car dealership at the time) I believe have true success rates and publish those cases to demonstrate success – see Horvitz & Levy recent wins, or even the one man firm of The Ehrlich Firm has numerous wins to his credit, or Morris Polich & Purdy who have dozens of wins at the court of appeal and supreme court. The point being, I think those law firms earned the right to claim to be experts, and “leading” law firms since each firms history demonstrates they truly win. Typically, a law firm does not self proclaim it “is” a “leading” law firm, but they are ranked by the legal community, legal publications, and provided awards and other forms of recognition by legal associations, government, etc. I do not believe not believe an attorney should claim to be a “leading” law firm, have an office by the train tracks in east San Diego, and also operate a law school out of a small office (yes it’s true Scott McMillan is also Dean of The McMillan Academy of Law – which does not have a single graduate who has passed the bar, see “0” students took bar exam. Real “leading” attorneys, in my humble opinion, do not claim honorable, federal agents, intimidated him and had stolen product from his client (I have not heard anything about the agents being charged with crimes or fired) or simply “won” $20 for his client. But that’s just my opinion. Verify what you read, and make no determinations on the above information – verify the facts on your own so you can make the right decision about what is and is not misleading information provided by an attorney and you believe is a “leading” attorney for Scott McMillan may have one more person in a county of 3 Million who believes he’s leading the way.

This person wrote the review because of not as described of the mcmillan law firm attorney from The Mcmillan Law Firm and attached photo s. Reviewer claimed that he or she lost $11 and wants The Mcmillan Law Firm to "the mcmillan law firm should stop claiming to be a leading law firm to clients, unless he is determined to be such by peer review, legal publication, etc".

The author asks this business to immediately contact him/ her to briefly discuss his/ her negative experience with the company.

We collected other reviews about products and/or services offered by The Mcmillan Law Firm for you to read. This information may help you with your purchase decision.

Had an Experience with The Mcmillan Law Firm?

Write a review

Comments

Terms of Service
Post Comment
Cancel
scottmc63
#1209219
The Mcmillan Law Firm Verified Representative

This is posted by Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm, APC, the subject of the post.

First, The McMillan Law Firm APC and Scott McMillan were not sued by Yelp.That was a different law firm, i.e., the McMillan Law Group.

That case ultimately was dismissed.

Second, the statement: "Williams v. Nordstrom, Inc., SD Sup Ct. 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL, Plaintiff and his counsel, were sanctioned nearly $16,000 for discovery abuse; case on appeal, see Case Number D069051" is misleading. The order of discovery sanctions was reversed on appeal.

See http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D069051.PDF

Third, the statement "McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc.

37-2014-00004953-CU-BT-CTL, D067610 (writ denied) [law firm posted its OWN reviews]" is misleading. The McMillan Law Firm represented The McMillan Law Group. McMillan Law Group was alleged, falsely, of posting its own reviews. It didn't.

Fourth, "Williams v.

Digius et al. Case No. D064183 (opposed defendant’s appeal and lost)", that is false in that the order was partially reversed, and partially affirmed. We consider it a win.

Here is the court of appeals opinion with the true facts: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D064183.PDF

Sixth, the statement "Oceans Eleven Casino v. Anders, Case Number S219395 (lost California Supreme Court case)" is simply false. The Petitioner in that case was the...

Oceans Eleven petitioned to the California Supreme Court, and the petition was denied. Here is the opinion in the court of appeal: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D063269.PDF Seventh, the statement "Bridgeman v. Allen et al., Case Number D062183 (lost appeal AND McMillan’s client forced to pay costs of respondent)", is partially true. The Firm's client did lose the appeal, but has not been "forced" to pay any costs.

There was not a cost bill served. Eighth, the statement "Morton v. Spotts, Case Number D058640 (McMillan lost appeal – his client lost at trial and found liable for $15,000)" is false. The McMillan Law Firm's client Morton prevailed at trial and was awarded compensatory damages and attorneys fees.

However, she did not prevail on all claims. The defendant Spotts did not overturn the $15,000 in punitive damages on her cross appeal. The court of appeals decision is here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D058640.PDF With respect to the McMillan Academy of Law, MAOL is presently dormant. One of the other San Diego law schools, Thomas Jefferson, began offering enrollment terms and financing that were more favorable to the market, and coupled with the declining job market for new attorneys, the school became dormant.

However, prior to that decision, two out of the three Academy students that took the First Year Law Student's Examination (Baby Bar), passed it, a statistic far better than the California average for other unaccredited schools registered with the Committee of Bar Examiners. The McMillan Law Firm fearlessly represents individuals and small businesses that are being oppressed by others, whether those others are neighbors, employers, businesses, government, or sociopaths with mental disorders. The poster here is likely a criminal by the name of Darren Chaker, a convicted felon. A small fraction of his past court proceedings is available for review here: http://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/index.php?action=displaycat&catid=478 Chaker, is a vexatious litigant, and is barred from filing new court cases without an attorney, unless he first obtains permission.

See http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf Chaker was defeated by the McMillan Law Firm in a landmark decision of the California Courts of Appeal, Chaker v.

Mateo, and that decision can be reviewed here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1613652.html The McMillan Law Firm's office is conveniently located in the quaint village of La Mesa.The village of La Mesa is served by the trolley, which allows the McMillan Law Firm's clients of modest means access to its office.

Show more

You May Also Like