Many small businesses in the historic and much-visited neighborhood have been hit with ADA complaints, often from the law offices of famed serial ADA filer Thomas Frankovich. (Carol Lloyd, “Surreal estate: ADA accessibility lawsuits causing headaches for small business owners”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 13). “I’ve seen the ADA racket threaten businesses in other towns, and they ended up closing. The owner [of a small chocolate shop that has now laid off three workers] has never gotten a formal complaint from a wheelchair-bound person, except for this suit.” (”SF_Anna”, “North Beach Block Threatened by ADA Suits”, MetBlogs, Aug. 20).

“I have no problem being accused of being a professional whatever,” says Allen Fox, who’s filed 139 disabled-accessibility lawsuits over six years in concert with attorney Samuel Aurelio, as many as eight of the similarly worded complaints in a day. Most of the complaints result in the payment of legal fees and Fox, of West Palm Beach, Fla., pays nothing on the rare occasions he loses.

Aurilio, who has filed 274 ADA cases in Florida, including Fox’s, laments that a few lawyers have given all of those who fight for the disabled a bad name. The poster child is a North Miami lawyer who in 2003 was sanctioned by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks for filing 13 lawsuits on behalf of a man he claimed was a quadriplegic who later walked in to give his deposition in one of the cases.

Not only was the man not disabled, he “did not know what a quadriplegic was, and when the term was explained to him, he was repulsed by the thought of being so incapacitated,” Middlebrooks wrote in a blistering 18-page order sanctioning lawyer Lawrence Fuller.

Fuller was also admonished by the Florida Bar; by one estimate, he’d taken in $3 million in his ADA practice by that point. (Jane Musgrave, “‘Pro Plaintiff’ Crusades for Disabled Access”, Palm Beach Post/Lakeland Ledger, May 12).

Three years ago we noted (following reporting by Ed Lowe and J.E. Espino of the Appleton, Wis. Post-Crescent) (more) that

Representatives of the Hollywood, Fla.-based law firm of Schwartz Zweben & Associates have played a substantial role behind the scenes in helping organize, promote and support the Ms. Wheelchair America pageant and some of its state affiliates. And lawyers with the firm have filed more than 200 lawsuits in at least seven states and the District of Columbia on behalf of at least 13 pageant participants, “including state and national titleholders, state coordinators and pageant judges”.

Now the Birmingham, Ala. News follows up on the case of Colleen Macort, Ms. Wheelchair Florida 2002, who has filed more than 73 disabled-accessibility actions in Alabama “but has never spent a day in court because of settlements”. Local law provides that Macort cannot be compensated for filing the lawsuits, but the Wisconsin paper reported that the firm of Schwartz Zweben had engaged her as a consultant on other cases. The reporter is kind enough to quote me and mention this site (Liz Ellaby, “Bessemer woman crusades to address disability act violations, provoking critics”, Birmingham News, Jul. 3).

In the state of Washington, Ms. Wheelchair Washington 2005, Michelle Beardshear, has teamed up with the Florida firm to file 15 lawsuits, of which twelve have been settled, against enterprises in Clark County (Kathie Durbin, “Advocate for disabled not hesitant to sue for access”, The Columbian, May 27 courtesy Chamber ILR). And in March, Schwartz Zweben & Slingbaum (as it is now called) swooped down to sue twelve defendants in the Tucson area, including a number of well-known restaurants, alleging ADA violations. (Josh Brodesky, “12 Tucson businesses facing suits alleging Disabilities Act problems”, Arizona Daily Star, Mar. 28).

Even rural Northern California affords no refuge from the filing mills:

Eureka’s Arctic Circle franchise has closed its doors after the restaurant was sued for noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Jack Williams, who has owned the franchise with his wife, Peggy, since 1989, said the couple decided to close the business last Tuesday because they cannot afford the renovations required by the lawsuit.

The suit was filed by local attorney Jason K. Singleton, who in recent years has filed ADA-related suits against a number of local establishments, including Village Pantry, Broadway Cinema, Fortuna Theatre, Cafe Waterfront and College of the Redwoods, among others. …

“Here we had a business that was serving all kinds of customers and now is serving no one,” Hockaday [J Warren Hockaday, executive director of the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce] said.

(Ryan Burns, “Arctic Circle closes due to ADA lawsuit”, The Times-Standard, May 6; earlier).

It looks as if, barring intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, serial ADA litigant Jarek Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich, longtime Overlawyered favorites both, won’t be filing any more accessibility lawsuits in California’s populous Central District. The Ninth Circuit’s decision not to disturb an order to that effect by the late Judge Edward Rafeedie, however, came by a surprisingly narrow margin, with nine judges dissenting. Among them, Judge Marsha Berzon said Rafeedie should not have acted unilaterally to bar the two from suing throughout the district, while Alex Kozinski went so far as to maintain that Rafeedie had failed to offer evidence in suggesting “that Molski is a liar and a bit of a thief”. The majority of judges, however — and the Ninth is among the last circuits anyone would accuse of an excessive wish to shut down litigation — disagreed. (Dan Levine, “9th Circuit Judges Blast Order Barring ADA Lawyer”, The Recorder, Apr. 9). One final bit from the account in the Recorder might cause the reader’s jaw to drop open, as it did mine:

Rafeedie died of cancer late last month, but Frankovich still holds a grudge.

“What he did is morally reprehensible,” the attorney said Monday. “Acting morally reprehensible creates bad karma, and sometimes you have to pay the piper for bad karma.”

In other news of vexatious California litigants:

For years, self-described public-interest litigator Burton Wolfe has bragged that he was one of the few people to get off the state’s so-called vexatious litigant list for self-represented plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits. Those who are put on the list can file “pro per,” or do-it-yourself, lawsuits only with a judge’s permission. But after enjoying a few years off the blacklist, the 75-year-old Wolfe has sued his way back onto the roster. … [His name was restored to the list after] he sued the San Francisco Food Bank and America’s Second Harvest for setting up what he calls a food “racket” in the privately owned low-income senior-housing Eastern Park Apartments where he lives.

(Lauren Smiley, “Vexatious Litigant Burton Wolfe Fighting Eviction After Threatening More Lawsuits”, San Francisco Weekly, Feb. 20). Perhaps the most celebrated of modern San Francisco’s vexatious litigants is Patricia A. McColm, who has been profiled in a number of news stories including Ken Garcia, “Woman who sues at drop of hat may get hers”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 6, 2000, reprinted at Forensic Psychiatric Associates site. Incidentally, the British court system is thoughtful enough to post its list of vexatious litigants online, an obvious aid to persons who might find themselves the target of threatened suits by persons on the list. But although the California courts have a webpage discussing the fact of their having a list, I could find no sign that they had posted the list itself online. Have any U.S. states (or Canadian provinces, etc.) done so?

The high-profile Los Angeles attorney, who’s made frequent appearances in these pages, is headed to federal prison following his conviction for tax evasion, money laundering and bankruptcy fraud (see Jun. 24). U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson chided Yagman for testimony “so transparently untrue in so many areas.” (Scott Glover, “Attorney Yagman sentenced to 3 years for tax evasion, fraud”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 28). Best known for his lawsuits against police departments, the much-criticized Yagman has also represented the principals in a famous Americans with Disabilities Act filing mill that launches mass complaints against small businesses and settles them for cash (Mar. 18, 2005; Nov. 4, 2006). According to the L.A. Times account, he “twice was suspended by the state bar for charging clients ‘unconscionable’ fees.” When a retired police sergeant sent him a letter expressing “glee” over his indictment, Yagman promptly sued him (Jan. 5, 2006). Norm Pattis (Nov. 29) reflects: “I wonder whether Yagman became a Leona Helmsley-type figure. The law is for little people, he appears to have thought.”

We’ve been covering the exploits of professional ADA plaintiff Jarek Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich for a long time now (See Aug. 3, Mar. 23, many others). When last we checked, Molski/Frankovich were appealing a federal judge’s finding in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. that they were vexatious litigants; the designation meant that they couldn’t file any more ADA lawsuits in the Central District of California without first getting permission from the court.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion (PDF) which upheld the finding in its entirety. The only quirky part of the case was that it was likely that many of the establishments sued by Molski/Frankovich at least technically probably had violated the ADA by not complying with its vague, onerous requirements. But the Ninth Circuit had no problem getting beyond that:

Frivolous litigation is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit. It is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure of a legitimate claim to make false factual assertions. Just as bringing a completely baseless claim is frivolous, so too a person with a measured legitimate claim may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.

And for some reason, neither the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit were impressed with Molski’s factual assertions:

However, it is very unlikely that Molski suffered the same injuries, often multiple times in one day, performing the same activities—transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet or negotiating accessibility obstacles. Common sense dictates that Molski would have figured out some way to avoid repetitive injury-causing activity; even a young child who touches a hot stove quickly learns to avoid pain by not repeating the conduct.

The Ninth Circuit was not any more complimentary towards Frankovich:

When a client stumbles so far off the trail, we naturally should wonder whether the attorney for the client gave inadequate or improper advice.

The court also found significant that Frankovich may well have broken legal ethics rules by trying to intimidate defendants into settling without hiring lawyers and giving them (bad) legal advice.

This isn’t necessarily the end for Molski/Frankovich. The vexatious litigant order applies only to the federal courts — in fact, only the federal courts in the Central District of California — and does not prevent them from filing suit; it only requires them to seek permission of the court first.

Continue Reading »

Serial ADA litigant (and Overlawyered repeat offender) Thomas Frankovich was profiled recently in SF Weekly. Overlawyered readers will be familiar with just about everything in there, from Frankovich’s extortionate tactics to his collaboration with professional plaintiffs like Jarek Molski, to his use of front groups in an attempt to make his litigiousness seem like a public service. (Frankovich, incidentally, does not work in a wheelchair accessible office.)

Matthew Hirsch of LegalPad reports that Frankovich is attempting to rehabilitate his image before the Ninth Circuit rules on whether he, and his fellow traveler Molski, are vexatious litigants:

Starting this month, Frankovich and a major client are offering defendants a deal: “You make your [entrance] doorway accessible, and we will waive any and all claims — including money damages,” he said.

Yes, but Frankovich is a lawyer, so be sure to read the fine print:

Frankovich said his clients who are affiliated with DREES will offer the front door deal if they are visiting only to check out the entrance. But if they spot a door that wheelchair users can’t open, then they go inside to shop and notice more problems, “that becomes something different,” Frankovich said, and the deal is off.

Reporter Jay Miller quotes me and mentions this site in an article on ADA mass-filing operators; the piece should be available on a registration basis for a few more days before becoming subscriber-only (Jay Miller, “Flood of lawsuits filed under Disabilities Act”, Financial Week, May 28). This site has been covering ADA filing mills for years and years; see Apr. 15, Mar. 27, and many other entries on our disabled-rights page.

• Whoops! Insurer’s lawyer backtracks and scrambles for cover after saying some Miami/Dade judges “are being paid off” [Daily Business Review; possibly related, scroll to mention of Miami near end]
• Climate’s different up there: Google and Wikipedia sued for libel in Canada over user-generated content [Rob Hyndman]
• Lawyers implicated in Ky. fen-phen scandal are owners of Curlin, horse that placed third in Kentucky Derby [Courier-Journal, Sun-Times, Sports Network, WSJ law blog]
• “As a lawyer, I hear stories about lawsuit abuse all the time,” but Judge Pearson’s pants suit takes the cake [Nasty Brutish & Short; also lively discussion at Digg]
• Ramps of gold: serial ADA-suit filers George Louie, David Gunther and others launch wave of sidewalk suits against Northern California towns [Contra Costa Times]
• $250 fine for releasing a balloon into the air in New Hampshire? Criminalizing nearly everything [National Law Journal; also Ayn Rand]
• Helpful, if scary: “12 Important U.S. Laws Every Blogger Needs To Know” [Aviva Directory]
• U.K. lawyers ordered to pay back tens of millions of pounds in excessive fees earned for representing sick miners [Times Online Apr. 16, Apr. 25, Apr. 10; Telegraph]
• Did Rosie O’Donnell come out for loser-pays on ABC’s “The View”? Someone please get a transcript [Bill Boushka]
• Japan doesn’t furnish us with much material, but here’s one about magicians suing TV broadcasters for revealing secrets behind coin tricks [Above the Law]
• Sensitivity vs. sensitivity: female drummers allowed to sue over their (culturally authentic) exclusion from ritual drumming at Native American powwow [five years ago on Overlawyered]

• Update: Jarek Molski’s appeal of his “vexatious litigant” status [On Point]
• Watch what you say dept.: Beaumont plaintiffs’ lawyers subpoena newspaper. [Beaumont Enterprise; Southeast Texas Record; Houston Chronicle]
• “New York’s Most Obnoxious Lawyer.” If anything, the profile is soft. [Village Voice via ATL; see Apr. 16]
• Class action phishing [Oklahoma Attorney General]
• Tales of a Dallas poker raid [Balko]
• “If I was going to go into the newspaper business all over again, I’d be the lawyer who advises the paper to fire me and free up more money for legal fees.” {Steyn]
• “If you really want to understand inequality today you must first understand Harry Potter.” [MargRev]

As Ted reported Mar. 23, a Ninth Circuit panel lately took an indulgent line toward notorious ADA mass filer Jarek Molski, reversing a ruling by Judge Tevrizian of the district court. (More on that ruling from Law.com). “Army Lawyer” in the comments at Patterico (via Coyote) passes along this classic bit of Molskiana (from the earlier round of litigation before federal judge Rafeedie):

Although this complaint appears credible standing alone, its validity is undermined when viewed alongside Molski’s other complaints. In Molski v. Casa De Fruta, L.P., Case No. C04-1981 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. In Casa de Fruta, Molski alleges that he and significant other, Brygida Molski, patronized Casa de Fruta for the purpose of wine tasting….

It would be highly unusual — to say the least — for anyone to sustain two injuries, let alone three, in a single day, each of which necessitated a separate federal lawsuit. But in Molski’s case, May 20, 2003, was simply business as usual. Molski filed 13 separate complaints for essentially identical injuries sustained between May 19, 2003 and May 23, 2003. The Court simply does not believe that Molski suffered 13 nearly identical injuries, generally to the same part of his body, in the course of performing the same activity, over a five-day period. This is to say nothing of the hundreds of other lawsuits Molski has filed over the last four years, many of which make nearly identical allegations.

In ADA filing mills; disabled rights; Jarek Molski

Last week, Ted posted a court decision about a lawyer/client team who have turned the Americans with Disabilities Act — in theory, a law designed to protect actual consumers — into a full-time career, patronizing businesses for the specific purpose of being able to sue them. Not all such lawyer/client teams bother to even take the step of patronizing the businesses, however; some just skip the damages and go right to the extortion, hoping the defendants will pay rather than spend the money to defend themselves.

Many times, their business model works, but occasionally, it backfires, as it did last week on serial ADA litigant Theodore Pinnock. (Technically, Pinnock is the attorney, not the plaintiff. But why split hairs? The plaintiffs, Delores Jackson and the imaginary organization she “represents,” the Association of Women with Disabilities Advocating Access, are just fronts for Pinnock.) On Friday, a federal judge in San Diego sanctioned Pinnock, ordering him to take an ethics class and pay $15,000 in attorneys fees to Marcos Mout, a defendant he had sued last October. Mout owned a convenience store, and was sued because the store was allegedly inaccessible to the disabled. Well, not quite:

Jackson, who uses a walker, said she had “researched” the store and had photographic evidence of numerous violations. In the complaint, she said she had intended to patronize the store but would have been thwarted by problems with signage, the entrance door, interior paths, counter height, parking and the restroom, among many things.

The businessman’s attorney countered that the convenience store wasn’t even open to the public at the time Jackson was allegedly denied access, having been seriously damaged in December 2004 by a flood.

Mitch Wallis, attorney for convenience store owner Marcos Mouet, also told the court that the small store, which remains shuttered, didn’t even have a public restroom. Jackson’s lawsuit also alleged that interior pathways weren’t wide enough, but Mouet’s attorney noted that the shelves had been pushed against the wall to fix the flood damage.

Yes, but aside from those issues…

Incidentally, the Bizarro-Overlawyered crowd will tell you that frivolous suits are easily, quickly, and cheaply disposed of by the courts; this case illustrates yet again how badly they misunderstand the nature of the legal system. Because the suit against Mout’s convenience store made superficially legitimate allegations, it cost Mout at least $15,000 to defend the suit. (He actually claimed legal costs of $38,000 in making his motion for sanctions, but the court found that $15,000 was a more reasonable figure.) And that was for a suit that lasted “only” five months.

Previous coverage of Pinnock: Apr. 2006

We’ve had many stories on frequent filer Jared Molski, the vexatious litigant who has filed hundreds of ADA actions in the last five years, and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich, briefly suspended for related ethical violations. Today the Ninth Circuit came down with an opinion in the case of Molski v. M.J. Cable:

Molski, who is paraplegic, sued Cable’s for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s
Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), alleging that Cable’s
failed to accommodate the disabled. Although Molski provided
uncontradicted evidence that Cable’s did not identify
and remove architectural barriers, the jury returned a verdict
for the restaurant. The District Court denied Molski’s motion
for a new trial, speculating that the jury could have reasonably
concluded that because of Molski’s record of litigiousness, he
was a “business” and not an “individual” entitled to the
ADA’s protections. We reverse.

[...]

On cross examination, Molski acknowledged that: he did not complain
to any of Cable’s employees about his access problems; he
had filed 374 similar ADA lawsuits as of October 8, 2004;
Frankovich had filed 232 of the 374 lawsuits; even more lawsuits
had been filed since that date; Molski and Frankovich
averaged $4,000 for each case that settled; Molski did not pay
any fees to Frankovich; Molski maintained no employment
besides prosecuting ADA cases, despite his possession of a
law degree; Molski’s projected annual income from settlements
was $800,000; Molski executed blank verification
forms for Frankovich to submit with responses to interrogatories;
they had also filed lawsuits against two other restaurants
owned by Cable’s; they had filed a lawsuit against a nearby
restaurant; and Sarantschin obtained up to 95% of his income
from Frankovich’s firm for performing investigations for
ADA lawsuits.

The court acknowledges Molski’s notorious history as a vexatious litigant, but effectively holds that the ADA permits such strategies. That legal holding appears correct (the ability of professional litigants to extort small businesses is a statutory problem with the ADA and the Unruh Act that needs to be solved by the legislature, rather than by courts). But the jury could have chosen to disbelieve Molski’s testimony, given that Molski had the burden of proof and had substantial pecuniary motivation. The Ninth Circuit simply refuses to acknowledge this possibility in reversing the jury’s verdict. (It’s unclear whether testimony the restaurant vice president provided on cross-examination provides sufficient admissions to justify the appellate court’s decision; it is possible that this is the case.) Worse, in dicta in footnote 3, the Ninth Circuit suggests that it may have been improper for the defendants to have cross-examined Molski on his full-time litigation career because such evidence would have been “irrelevant.” (Via Bashman.)

Update: The On Point blog (sadly still missing permalinks, though now with an RSS feed) posts the trial court decision denying a new trial, which is less than absolutely persuasive.

• More ADA filing mills: “Fuller, Fuller and Associates was once sanctioned when their client, who was alleged to be quadriplegic, walked into his own deposition.” [Childs @ MassTort]
• Professional expert witnesses as a publicly traded multimillion dollar industry. [WSJ]
• No accommodation needed for LSAT taker claiming ADHD. [Legal Intelligencer]
• Homeowner’s gripe on web draws lawsuit from contractor. [WaPo]
• Lawsuits of the future: Muslim cashier refuses to ring up bacon (if only I had thought of that when I was in high school) [Minn. Star-Tribune]
• Neighbors feud over driveway: “three civil lawsuits, a physical altercation, a criminal indictment, [and] a court hearing over a videotape” [St. Pete. Times]
• “Warning: Lawsuits Hazardous To Financial Health” [Forbes.com]
• Y’know, if a man wrote a ludicrous essay to the effect that every professional women has a Lisa Nowak inside of them on the verge of erupting, that’d be the last thing he ever wrote. [Legal Times]

Readers who follow the phenomenon of ADA filing mills (Dec. 7, etc.) may recall the case of West Coast attorney Theodore Omholt, who has filed hundreds of legal complaints against businesses for violations (trivial or otherwise) of disabled-access laws, which he then settles for cash. In Honolulu, according to one news report, Omholt pushed his elderly mother around in a wheelchair to one business after another to establish the basis for filing 574 lawsuits. (Carolyn Said, “Controversial disability rights lawyer”, San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 21, 2002.) Omholt then refocused his practice on California where he sent out the following letter, quoted in my article three years ago in City Journal:

I am the attorney (age 48) who for the past three years has had the privilege to represent a small action group of six wonderful individuals who use wheelchairs age 37 to 66. . . . Their shopping at inaccessible stores in San Francisco and then filing lawsuits as clients of mine against those inaccessible stores nets them each an income which makes them financially independent. For each of them, the lack of funds which used to limit them to life’s bare necessities and which plagues so many disabled individuals today has become only an unpleasant memory from the past. As a reward for implementing the law and making stores more accessible for other disabled shoppers, group members now use their stream of income to eat out at good restaurants when they want to, buy new clothes and computers and televisions and gifts for family members, travel and take vacations wherever and whenever they want to go, and live a lifestyle they could only imagine prior to joining the group. . . . The group has room for a small number of additional members. Once that small number of additional members has been selected, the group will again close to new members.

Alas, even the most thoughtfully devised business plans sometimes meet with a hitch. Reader W.R. alerts us to this copy of Supreme Court minutes (PDF) from San Francisco, dated May 10 of last year, which at page 51 reports the following:

S143253 OMHOLT ON RESIGNATION — The voluntary resignation of TED OMHOLT, State Bar No. 92979, as a member of the State Bar of California is accepted without prejudice to further proceedings in any disciplinary proceeding pending against respondent should he hereafter seek reinstatement. It is ordered that he comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court and that he perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the date this order is filed.* Costs are awarded to the State Bar. *(See Bus. and Prof. Code, §6126, subd. (c).)

It’s too bad the minutes aren’t more informative about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Omholt’s voluntary resignation from the California bar. Readers familiar with the details are welcome to illuminate matters.

We’ve linked in the past to a lot of excellent investigative journalism on the disabled-rights filing mills that have blanketed whole business districts in California and elsewhere with accessibility complaints that quickly convert to cash demands. (Some examples: Carmel (Calif.) Pine Cone on Jarek Molski and Thomas Frankovich, blogger George Wallace on Jerry Dolan, CNN on George Louie, among others; and I might as well promote my own 2004 effort for City Journal). Among the most riveting of the bunch appeared this fall in Southern California’s Orange County Weekly. (R. Scott Moxley, “The New Crips”, Orange County Weekly, Oct. 13). A few highlights:

* “Lawyers familiar with [wheelchair user David Allen] Gunther’s activities estimate he’s taken more than $400,000 in the last 36 months, mostly from mom-and-pop shops in Garden Grove, Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Orange, Tustin, Buena Park, Stanton, Seal Beach, Santa Ana, Dana Point, Huntington Beach and Los Angeles. If true, that’s quite a haul for a man who has spent most of his adult life unemployed, according to records obtained by the Weekly.”

* One of the first targets of Gunther’s suits, a flower seller in Anaheim, fought back, pointing out to a judge that she was herself wheelchair-bound and that her shop had a ramp. Gunther’s suit was dismissed, with no apology; “on the day Gunther said he drove to Gibson’s flower shop, he claimed in separate legal filings that he also wanted to patronize Gibson’s neighbors: a massage parlor, a dental office and a palm reader.” He got money from the massage parlor but not from the palm reader, who like the flower seller pointed out to Gunther’s lawyer that he did indeed have a ramp.

* “A Weekly investigation traced Gunther’s activities around the western U.S. during the last quarter of a century, uncovering evidence that not only has he exaggerated his reliance on a wheelchair, but he’s also whitewashed his own history of chronic unemployment, multiple drug addictions, narcotics trafficking, assaults, petty thefts, burglaries, a decade of missed child support payments, and more than a dozen arrests and stints in jail.”

* Gunther’s lawyer is none other than longtime Overlawyered favorite Morse Mehrban, (Nov. 4-5, 2002, Mar. 12, 2004, Jul. 9, 2004). Faced “with a discovery demand for the details of Gunther’s ADA settlements, Mehrban resisted for weeks, arguing that the information was ‘confidential and proprietary.’ Said Mehrban, ‘There is nothing to be gained by examination of the documents.’ Eventually, he told a judge that the issue was moot. He routinely destroys all Gunther’s paper records and erases the memories of his office computers, he said.”

* Nor is it possible for members of the outside public or media to attend the monthly meetings of Equal Access Now, a group Gunther has set up to promote access complaints. “‘Sorry, it’s private,’ said Gunther. ‘I teach disabled people about their rights.’” Gunther often files actions in concert with three other wheelchair users, each of whom claims the $4,000 per violation entitlement.

* After ending a client relationship with his own former lawyer, Gunther sued, claiming the lawyer’s bathroom was unaccessible. The lawyer’s staff said that Gunther not only had used the bathroom without incident but that he had in fact comfortably walked into and out of the office on repeated visits.

* At a meeting of some of Gunther’s victims in Santa Ana, “Jin Kim, owner of a barbecue restaurant at 17th Street and Grand Avenue, cried. He recounted the shock of getting the lawsuit without warning, how Mehrban had coldly refused to negotiate despite pleas, and that he had to sell his wife’s ring and a vehicle to pay Gunther $16,000—and his own attorney another $4,000 in fees. His crime? His restroom mirror was allegedly mounted a few inches too high and the door was a few pounds too heavy to push.”

* And his lawyer’s own offices? As it happens, they’re up a steep flight of steps in Koreatown: “Mehrban says it would not be practical to make his office accessible to the handicapped.”

The whole article, again, is here. Note that the California legislature has shown no discernible interest in amending the Unruh Act so as to curb this kind of entrepreneurial activity. Note also that the “ADA Notification Act”, a proposal in Washington aimed at curtailing cognate abuses based on the federal ADA, was unable to attain any serious traction even in the supposedly pro-business Republican Congress now drawing to its close.

P.S. Gunther’s activities also figured in the notable and recently decided case of Gunther v. Lin, discussed by Ted Dec. 1.

We’ve previously covered lawyers who file hundreds of lawsuits alleging discrimination against the disabled over alleged technical violations of the law, and then extort settlements at thousands of dollars a pop. (E.g., Nov. 4; Aug. 28; May 31, 2005). The Sacramento Bee recently ran an extensive series on the issue. (Marjie Lundstrom and Sam Stanton, “Visionary law’s litigious legacy”, Nov. 15 ; Id., “Frequent filers”, Nov. 16; Id., “Targeting entire towns”, Nov. 12; Bullet-point summary).

A California court has interpreted that state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act to only provide $4000 penalties in the case of intentional violations of the law; while this is a good public policy result in the abstract, I’m personally wary of the court using its judicial power to rewrite the poor legislation. It also doesn’t fix the problem with the federal law. (Gunther v. Lin; Wendy Thomas Russell, “Court ruling puts crimp in disability lawsuits”, Long Beach Press Telegram, Nov. 19). And in Florida, the press is just getting around to noticing the drive-by problem because of Robert Cohen’s 300 suits. (Kelli Kennedy, “‘Drive by’ suits rake in dough for attorneys”, AP/Miami Herald, Nov. 28 (h/t W.F.)). Even reflexive reform opponent Stephanie Mencimer takes notice and can’t defend the parasitic lawyering involved, but manages to spin the issue to implausibly blame the Republicans for the problem—though the ADA’s civil remedies were drafted by Democrats when they controlled Congress in 1991.