Vexacious ADA Litigant? -or- Just Another Skumbag Lawyer?

[Bicycle Bill]

None of these lawsuits can be filed in county courts. Perhaps if you learned to read...

I caught — and corrected — that.  Got confused with the harassment case filed against him, which WAS in Sacramento County.

edited to add —

Yeah, those look like "legal aides" to me... just like "Charlie's Angels" looked like your typical police women.

re: the sexual harassment case — it's still on-going, and based on this newspaper article it sounds like, as Ricky used to say to Lucy, "he's got some 'splainin' to do!!".

-"BB"-

[Sue U]

I stand by my assessment at the top of this thread.

Of course; why let any facts get in the way of your preconceived notions?

[Sue U]

Thirdly, that's only in Sacramento Federal Court.  How many other federal courts are there in California?

There are a total of three federal districts in California: Northern, Central and Southern. And you don't just file willy-nilly in any and all districts.

[Scooter]

So the writer of this hit piece reported the Sacramento numbers because they were most, if not all, of the cases filed.

I stand by my assessment. This is no bonanza being cashed in on.

[Joe Guy]

This has been too great a place for too long a time to throw up its hands at a threat. As TJ Boyle, Joanne's husband, says of Johnson: "If he had a falafel, he wouldn't do this.''

That's the whole point. He can't get into your restaurant to have a falafel.

[RayThom]

This just in. More ADA stuff:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect ... -17417.pdf

[Jarlaxle]

The several commercial building projects (new and significant remodels) I have been involved with all included getting sign off from the ADA compliance officer. It is part of the building permit process. Any time you see work being done on a commercial structure, it is clear that there are ADA compliance items included, such as ramps and ramped curbs, etc. With 25+ years of this type of permitting, it should be getting more rare that there would be ADA violations, at least substantive violations. And there is ongoing ADA administration, which presumably is complaint driven. Most people would prefer that substantive issues be dealt with through a regulatory body, rather than having the attorney-enforcement mechanism. This is especially true under the California/Florida attorney-enforcement model where attorneys have added incentives (minimum damages for even the most minor of violations, which increases any settlement value). Under the regulatory enforcement model (funded by fees, not taxes), you have a public employee, with at least some public-feedback and supervisory oversight, who would balance the impact of infractions, the costs of compliance, and the relevant factors in determining how to deal with compliance issues.

Yet again: tbere are some places that simply CANNOT be made compliant. Probably not so much on the west coast, but in older areas-especially tye northeast-there are many. (Off the top of my head, I deliver to a store that could probably only be made compliant by demolishing the existing 150+ year old building and starting from scratch.)

[Scooter]

If they cannot be made compliant, then they are not required to be made compliant. So remind me again what the problem is?

[Bicycle Bill]

You know, I find it a little bit strange when a poster from Canada (Scooter) presumes to lecture Americans on how to best comply with American law.  It is my understanding that the Canucks do not have anything comparable in their country, at least not on a national level.

Siddown, Scooter, you've got no dog in this fight.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

Oh fuck off. Can you demonstrate that I am wrong? Of course not, which is why you have to fall back on the "you're not American, therefore you have no right to comment on anything about the U.S." gambit.

You are by no means the first one to try it; it is the common refuge of those who have no rebuttal for what has been said.

[Scooter]

ETA - and we have no federal equivalent because our constitution provides for a different division of powers than yours. It doesn't mean that similar provisions haven't been enacted by the various provinces whose jurisdiction it is to legislate such things. Which they have, and they have been done with more teeth. Because we are better than you.

[Guinevere]

You know, I find it a little bit strange when a poster from Canada (Scooter) presumes to lecture Americans on how to best comply with American law.  It is my understanding that the Canucks do not have anything comparable in their country, at least not on a national level.

Siddown, Scooter, you've got no dog in this fight.

-"BB"-

He happens to be correct.

So, about those pesky little facts that consistently get in the way of a good lawyer-bashing rant......

[Guinevere]

So in twelve years he has filed about 1000 suits - less than 100 per year. If average settlement is $5K, that's less than $50,000 per year generated from this, out of which, as Sue said, he has to pay staff, etc.

This is sounding less and less like any sort of cash cow and more like a labour of love.

First of all, that article was from 2012, so that's an eight year period, not twelve.
Secondly, it says "more than 1000" — how many more than 1000 is anyone's guess.
Thirdly, that's only in Sacramento Federal Court.  How many other federal courts are there in California?

If what Dick the Butcher suggests in Shakespeare's "Henry the Sixth (Part 2)" — "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." — ever comes to pass, this dirtbag deserves to be one of the first ones up against the wall.

-"BB"-

You do realize that in the play the reason for killing the lawyers first was because they were what was standing between law and order and total anarchy?

No need to answer the question, it was rhetorical It is apparent you do not understand the meaning and context of the line. Or much of anything about the ADA.

[Joe Guy]

It sounds like Trumpalogical to me when people blame the lawyer for going after a business that isn't ADA compliant. This falafel business is trying to avoid an expense that all similar businesses must pay. Unless they find an exemption, they need to update the building or face fines and/or closure.

It's that simple. Even an Canuck can understand it...

[MGMcAnick]

Which brings me to Point the Third, which is that a $5k fee per case is not nearly enough return to justify the many many hours of developing the necessary expertise just to handle a one-off case, let alone cover the costs of overhead that come with operating a small business like a law office. And I guarantee you that at a $5k fee per settlement, Scott Johnson is hardly raking in millions. At that rate, you'd have to settle and get paid on one case each and every week just to gross $250k per year

I suppose in the rarefied air of legal salaries a quarter million dollars a year is chickenfeed. It makes me wonder if there are other parts of his practice where he rakes in the BIG BUCKS.

[Jarlaxle]

Or if he got a big settlement from the MC wreck that crippled him.

[Sue U]

Which brings me to Point the Third, which is that a $5k fee per case is not nearly enough return to justify the many many hours of developing the necessary expertise just to handle a one-off case, let alone cover the costs of overhead that come with operating a small business like a law office. And I guarantee you that at a $5k fee per settlement, Scott Johnson is hardly raking in millions. At that rate, you'd have to settle and get paid on one case each and every week just to gross $250k per year

I suppose in the rarefied air of legal salaries a quarter million dollars a year is chickenfeed. It makes me wonder if there are other parts of his practice where he rakes in the BIG BUCKS.

In my model, $250,000 is not the lawyer's salary, but the annual gross income of the business, out which all operating costs have to be paid -- including support staff wages, office rental, professional insurance, business insurance, health insurance, business taxes, office supplies, office technology, licensing fees, bar fees, etc. Whatever is left over is the lawyer's "salary."

From what I have read, Scott Johnson doesn't appear to have any other area of practice.

[MGMcAnick]

In my model, $250,000 is not the lawyer's salary, but the annual gross income of the business, out which all operating costs have to be paid -- including support staff wages, office rental, professional insurance, business insurance, health insurance, business taxes, office supplies, office technology, licensing fees, bar fees, etc. Whatever is left over is the lawyer's "salary."

From what I have read, Scott Johnson doesn't appear to have any other area of practice.

Don't worry. I understand the difference between net and gross. How much do you suppose he pays that harem anyway? Since no legal experience is required to undress and dress him, I doubt it's much more than minimum wage.

It's OK Sue. I'm sure he's an impoverished model citizen. He's so poor, it seems he lives at the office to cut down on the overhead expenses.

[oldr_n_wsr]

only be made compliant by demolishing the existing 150+ year old building and starting from scratch.)

Unless of course it is deemed an "Historical Structure" (or whatever the classification is) and he can't do anything to it unless he gets and complies with the Historical Impact Statement. Tearing down is a big no no with those structures.

[Jarlaxle]

I don't think it is...just a very old building.