Related posts

• s. 17200 (and Proposition 64) roundup (4)
• Why doesn’t Arnold…? (1)
• Update: s. 17200 (0)
• Update: PETA vs. “Happy Cows” ads (0)
• Update: California high court narrows Proposition 64 (9)

Related posts

• The Overlawyered iMix (11)
• Steve Berman sues Apple over iPods (6)
• Why doesn’t Arnold…? (1)
• Update: Calif. business groups launch s. 17200 initiative (2)
• The danger of talking to plaintiffs’ attorneys? The Nano class action (9)

Related posts

• March 2000 archives, part 2 (1)
• October 1999 archives, part 1 (0)
• January 2000 archives, part 2 (1)
• Update: “Happy Cows” ads (0)
• September 2001 archives, part 3 (0)

Relatedly or otherwise, Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch notes (Oct. 22) that Harpreet Singh Brar, known to Overlawyered readers for his abusive mass mailing of demand letters to California businesses,

came up with an even better defense to charges of failure to file tax returns on behalf of himself and his professional corporation: ineffective assistance of counsel. Sounds promising, except when you consider that Brar is an attorney who represented himself at trial. On appeal, he’s argued that he did not knowingly waive his right to counsel, and that he may have been under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the waiver. Not surprisingly, the appeals court rejected Brar’s argument. (Source: Metropolitan News-Enterprise.)

Tags: blue-ribbon excuses, New York state, s. 17200, taxes

Related posts

• Ninth Circuit: “Judge Wrongly Barred Asperger’s Evidence in Eco-Terrorism Trial” (2)
• Why doesn’t Arnold…? (1)
• What have they done with the old Rose and Crown? (2)
• Update: Schenectady BBS defamation (0)
• Update: s. 17200 (0)

Related posts

• Update: Calif. shakedowns (1)
• Update: “Happy Cows” ads (0)
• November 23 roundup (2)
• Nike v. Kasky (2)
• March 31 roundup (0)

A Manchester lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord salon for pricing haircuts differently for men and women and then took money to settle the matter was found guilty of theft by extortion.

A jury took about 1½ hours to convict Daniel Hynes, 27, on Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker said Hynes sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.

One arrived Dec. 20, 2006, at Claudia’s, the North Main Street hair salon owned by Claudia Lambert. In the letter, Hynes said prices should be based on the time a cut takes or on the length of hair, instead of on gender. He wrote: “I demand payment in the amount of $1,000 in order to avoid litigation,” according to court documents. …

Hynes said yesterday that he plans to appeal.

“The conviction goes against the First Amendment,” he said. “People have a right to petition the courts. In my case, I wanted to address my concern with the Human Rights Commission.”

Asked why he sent letters to salons instead of contacting the commission directly, Hynes said lawyers often settle out of court.

“I believe it’s more appropriate to attempt as amicable a resolution as possible,” he said.

… In one court document, he argued that the price structure that he saw as discriminatory had caused him stress and mental anguish, despite the fact that prices for men were less than those for women. He said he was being denied an “inherent benefit in being treated equally.”

(Chelsea Conaboy, “Lawyer guilty of salon extortion”, Concord Monitor, Mar. 21; Greenfield, Mar. 23; Above the Law, Mar. 25; Pasquale, Concurring Opinions, Mar. 24).

Prof. Bainbridge (Mar. 25) cites California’s experience with the now somewhat reformed s. 17200 unfair business practices law, which empowered freelancing lawyers to send out demand letters to businesses over a wide variety of alleged infractions. He concludes that the answer is to amend underlying laws which sweep too broadly in banning business practices, authorize damage claims unrelated to actual injury, and so forth. Although I much appreciate the kind suggestions for further reading he offers in his post, I can’t say I entirely go along with the idea that the scope for possible abuse would vanish if only the underlying laws were written properly. At Concurring Opinions, incidentally, one commenter draws a connection to RIAA’s mass production of demand letters against file-sharers, while another warns that for a target to complain to the authorities of extortion, as did the New Hampshire salon owner, might itself be construed by many courts as “retaliation” against the filer of a discrimination claim and thus as grounds for penalties on its own.

Related posts

• Update: rude doctor won’t be punished, plans suit (5)
• Update: lawsuit-funding cos. shun Ohio (0)
• Update: Calif. business groups launch s. 17200 initiative (2)
• Update: Blockbuster late fees (0)
• Speeding Into Court (13)

In February, Judge Polos [Peter J. Polos of Orange County Superior Court] sent Mr. Brar to jail for two weeks for violating his order [not to name multiple businesses in one suit], calling him “an extortionist.”

Mr. Brar said his experience in jail was a “nightmare,” which he said included watching several inmates be beaten by guards. Mr. Brar said he planned to represent several of them.

On April 16, Mr. Brar was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for two years for filing a frivolous motion and appeal against the attorney general and for using the courts as a delaying tactic, according to Kristin Ritsema, one of several supervising trial counsels at the state bar.

“I think he is a huge threat to the public,” Ms. Ritsema said.

Another local liquor store owner, Herve Domange, who is from Paris, said: “You couldn’t do this in France. In France, these lawsuits would not be possible. But I don’t want to say too much. I’m afraid I might get sued.” (Regan Morris, “Picking the Wrong Mom and Pop to Sue”, New York Times, Jun. 1).

Related posts

• Update: “Happy Cows” ads (0)
• Protectionism disguised as reparations-ism? (0)
• Nike v. Kasky (2)
• March 31 roundup (0)
• In today’s WSJ (2)

That business about settling rather than trying “almost all cases” got Cernovich’s suspicions up, and then he “saw something that made my jaw drop:”

In assessing the nature of the work and return on time spent it is helpful to keep in mind that the burden of proof is always on the employer to establish that he has paid the correct wages. The law requires that the employer keep accurate and timely maintained records that show hours worked and amounts paid. Failure to maintain such records is almost always at the heart of the case ….

Furthermore the employer will be liable for our legal fees if he is unable to defense the case. These two elements [the inability to prove us wrong and threat of attorneys fees] provide our clients with extraordinary leverage to resolve the matter.

Cernovich reads this as amounting to: “we sue employers knowing that it’s unlikely they’ll be able to produce records that will prove us wrong. … In other words, let’s just sue someone, hope he can’t produce any employment records to contradict us, threaten him with attorneys fees, and then settle the case post haste.” Or is he being too suspicious? (Mar. 8). (Updated/corrected shortly after posting to fix a mistake on my part about who placed the Craigslist ad; also retitled next morning.)

More on Trevor Law Group here and here. More on wage and hour law: Mar. 10, Jan. 9 and links from there.

Related posts

• Update: smog fee lawyers snag $23.7 million (0)
• Update: Calif. business groups launch s. 17200 initiative (2)
• Puttin’ on the s. 17200 ritz (0)
• Lockyer to sue grocery chains (0)
• “Unique opportunity” for restaurant ex-employees (0)

Related posts

• Wrongs without remedies dept. (1)
• Working overtime (or maybe not) for fees (1)
• Why doesn’t Arnold…? (1)
• White House race roundup (8)
• When they sue the wrong person (10)

Related posts

• Nike v. Kasky (2)
• March 31 roundup (0)
• Update: Speechless in Seattle (1)
• Update: Nike settles speech case (0)
• Update: Calif. shakedowns (1)