- Report: #1530407
Complaint Review: McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa - La Mesa CA
Reported By:
The_McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa -
San Diego, CA, United States
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa
4670 Nebo Drive 202 La Mesa, 91941 CA, United States
Phone:
619-393-1751
Web:
www,lamesaattorney.us
Categories:
Business Rating:
(1)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa scott_mcmillan_san_diego 4670_nebo Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Loses Nearly 600K La Mesa CA
Report Attachments
Pure Fraud: This is about Scott McMillan San Diego attorney with an office, The McMillan Law Firm in La Mesa. As a concerned person about lawsuit abuse and reviewing some other posts here, I could not help but doing some of my own digging to protect people who may want to hire an attorney. I do this by exposing information about Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm, La Mesa, Scott McMillan holds himself out as a "leading" attorney in his own online marketing but is not recognized by the San Diego County Bar Association or been given an award for being one of the best attorneys San Diego has to offer.
Scott McMillan does pay for being listed in SuperLawyers but he is not a true super lawyer. I found a case in which he lost nearly $600,000 and left his client with the bill since attrorneys do not work for free.
In Mancinelli v. Siewalk San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC 805629 the trial court deflated the high hopes of Scott McMillan San Diego attorney cashing in on a case he billed the client extensivley for. But the trial Court Not accepting defeat, Scott McMillan showed his true appellate skills when the Court of Appeal in San Diego DENIED his request to reverse the trial court.
In Mancinelli v. Rustie's Intl. Inc., No. D049673 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2008). the Court of Appeal found Scott McMillan’s appeal meritless as it denied every issue raised by The McMillan Law Firm La Mesa. A few key quotes from the Court of Appeal: “Mancinelli [McMillan’s client] argues section 1008 does not apply because the court denied his original motion "without prejudice." We disagree.” Yes another comment by the Court of Appeal, “We therefore conclude the court's denial of Mancinelli's [McMillan’s client] original motion without prejudice did not insulate his second renewed motion from the jurisdictional requirements of section 1008, subdivision (b).”
Most damaging, the Court of Appeal pointed out that Scott McMillan San Diego attorney failed to raise his issue with the trial court, thus jeopardizing his client’s appeal since the Court of Appeal could not consider this issue: The Court of Appeal stated, “We note Mancinelli did not raise this argument in the court below, which waives the issue on appeal.”
McMillan gets law wrong, again. Client left with attorney fees bill of nearly 600k. In my view Scott McMillan San Diego attorney is not the person who can claim he is a “leading” attorney in any practice other than failing at law. I ask consumers to be aware of an attorney who misrepresents himself as this presents a very clear danger to the client being left with a large unpaid bill and losing the case they thought were hiring the best attorney to litigate.
