 |
| Was it, and is it, "ethical" for lawyers to team up with plaintiffs to sue small business owners, Counties, Cities, and others, en masse, making fortunes for themselves and their plaintiffs---under the guise of providing greater access for disabled individuals? I say the answer is NO! |
The Americans with Disabilities Act, Discrimination, The Unruh Civil Rights Act, The Unfair Business Practices Act, and Accessibility to Public Places.
In 2002 I had just opened my third and fourth businesses, respectively, when I was hit with my first lawsuit as a small business owner. I was leveraged and I was vulnerable so the timing of the lawsuit, at that point in my life, could not have been worse. The suit itself was ridiculous--it was bogus.
A disabled person, confined to a wheelchair, a person who lived in the San Francisco Bay area--500 miles away from one of my establishments in the southern California City of La Mesa-- "suddenly" felt the need to come down and have a beer at my place. At least that's what he claimed, anyway.
But the truth of the matter was his complaint was bogus, the basis was bogus, and it was part of a scheme to make money under the guise of expanding "access" for persons with disabilities.
This was a serial litigant that had an attorney filing cases on his behalf and they were all making money at the expense of small businesses statewide.
Now, nobody would ever argue with expanding access to public accommodations for folks with disabilities. The problem was--I was never given a chance to fix the problem before I was sued and hit with demand letter. . Nope. Like that pop-song by Drake --it went 0 to 100 real quick.
Conveniently, if I agreed to play along, the suit would be dropped, the lawyer for the plaintiff would be paid, the plaintiff would be paid, and everyone would be happy....eventually I had to hire my own attorney, threaten to sue my own insurance company (Lloyds of London) to compel them to kick in
