I am writing to comment on David Thom’s letter entitled “We call them ambulance chasers,” which appeared in your July 31 issue. Mr. Thom expressed dismay about the number of ADA violation lawsuits filed without any effort to talk to the owners of the restaurants and resolve the issue before filing a complaint. Mr. Thom will likely be as disgusted as I was by the article in a recent San Francisco Chronicle about serial ADA filers, primarily one Scott Johnson, who has been the plaintiff in over 6,000 (that’s not a typo — six-thousand) lawsuits claiming ADA violations by small business owners.
One of my clients (who shall remain nameless) found herself on the wrong side of one of Mr. Johnson’s latest filings. What disturbed me almost as much as the filing itself was how she learned about the complaint against her: She received a copy in the mail from a law firm specializing in the defense of such matters, with a letter suggesting that she needed to retain counsel (them, of course).
There are ambulances being chased on both sides of the issue. How this is not an unlawful solicitation of business under State Bar Rule 1-400 is beyond me, but I’m one of the attorneys who thought legalizing attorney advertising back in 1977 would lead to no good.
Mr. Kent - are we sure these competing ambulance chasers aren’t colluding? And in your professional estimation, would this be considered illegal? For any interested readers, I think this is the link to your referenced Chronicle article:
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
Mr. Kent - are we sure these competing ambulance chasers aren’t colluding? And in your professional estimation, would this be considered illegal? For any interested readers, I think this is the link to your referenced Chronicle article:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Disability-lawsuits-hit-S-F-Chinatown-and-state-16356130.php
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.