| Scott McMillan La Mesa Attorney Assists Child Molester Ken Bourke |
| Lawyers - Scott McMillan - Shaun McMillan - Jim McMillan - Unlawful Practice of Law |
| 5th of Dec, 2011 by [email protected] |
As best put by attorneys headed by anti-SLAPP expert James Moneer who's opposing arrested child molester Ken Bourke appeal 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.” See Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, Case No. D057870
Ken Bourke, previously arrested for child molestation, who also failed a polygraph in a rape case, represented to the court that attorneys Scott McMillan, Shaun McMillan, and Jim McMillan, all of which graduated from a substandard unaccredited law school located behind a used car dealership, violated the law by ghostwriting Ken Bourke’s brief. This would violate the newly enacted Bus. & Prof. Code § 6400, and applied to attorneys under § 6401.
“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 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.’ ”).
Rule 11 requires an attorney to sign all documents submitted to the court nd to personally represent that there are grounds to support the assertions made in each filing in the course of that attorney's representation of a client. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Ghostwriting frustrates the application of these rules by shielding the attorney who drafted pleadings for alleged pro per litigants in a cloak of anonymity. An obvious improper benefit of the anonymity afforded ghostwriting attorneys is that they cannot be policed pursuant to the applicable ethical and professional rules.
California courts recognize 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).
Attorneys cross the line, however, when they gather and anonymously present legal arguments, with the actual or constructive knowledge that the work will be presented in some similar form in a motion before the Court. With such participation the attorney guides the course of litigation while standing in the shadows of the Courthouse door. Id.1 |
|
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
