The California law business (or at least the personal injury business which I was in for several lifetimes) has always been cutting edge. The phrase “cutting edge” means different things depending on what side you’re on. I was a civil defense lawyer most of my life. That means defending against “cutting edge” stuff designed to separate insurance companies from their money. One big early case for me was on behalf of American Airlines. Mrs. Borer was hurt when a light fell out of the ceiling at an airport and hit her. She had her own injuries as would be expected. Her husband sued for loss of consortium, which was expected after Rodgiguez v. Bethlehem Steel. Then her nine kids sued saying that mom had been turned from a nice lady into a harpy because of the pain she was suffering, and this change in mom’s persona caused damages to the kids. That was cutting edge. (That was Borer v. American Airlines.) I won that one. Who would have been hurt had I lost that one? The immediate payment would have been from American’s insurer. But there is a reason why everything has a warning label on it. There is a cost built into everything that any of us buys that pays for cutting edge lawsuits.

Once in a while, people in authority do say enough. Once upon a time there was a statute called Business & Professions Code section 17200, which defined Unfair Business Practices or Unfair Competition. It was a very widely drawn statute. Three enterprising young men (who were basically rookies, the significance of which I’ll mention below) had the enterprising, cutting edge idea of using B&P 17200 go after every business who did even the slightest thing wrong, calling it an unfair business practice. Your local strip mall “Happy Nails” is supposed to throw away bottles of nail polish after they use them once. These three enterprising, cutting edge rookies would then write to each of these stores, point out how each of those violations would generate a $100 fine, point out how every day there was $1000 in fines generated, so for a year they were looking at $365,000. But today and today only, they would settle that case for $500. This was the Trevor Law Group, not a couple of guys named Vinnie and Guido. Eventually, the Bar said enough was enough and threw the guys to the lions. They were prosecuted and disbarred.

But why did the California governing body of lawyers say enough is enough, and put its legislative and judicial feet down? The guys were rookies. They were a little heavy handed. They went after mom and pop stores mainly (like the Washington DC judge who sued the mom and pop cleaners for $18 billion or whatever it was.). But most of all, they were not thoroughly into the club. Cutting edge club, that is. They weren’t “respected” as great trial lawyers, who separate insurance companies from huge amounts of money, are respected. The grown-ups could and did push fact patterns that are ten times sillier than what the Trevor Law Group pushed. They could and did ask for ten times more money than the Trevor Law Group guys did on similar facts. But they’re Pete Carroll-esque lawyers. They are solidly in the club.

One more anecdote before the punch line. Like most everyone else, I worked as an Arbitrator and Settlement Officer from time to time. I had one case where a lawyer from the Auto Club came in and described plaintiff’’s case as “soft fraud,” He described “soft fraud” as an auto accident which really happened, but with an attorney pushing damages which just didn’t exist. No discernable property damage, but a claim of aggravated whiplash, requiring 11 months of constant chiropractic service and $10,000 in medical bills, generating a demand for the full $100,000 policy limits. That kind of “soft fraud” is tolerated in the law business in terms of damages, as long as the attorney pushing it is even close to being in the club. And it’s not like the accident didn’t happen, because it did. But those in the club, both plaintiff’s attorneys and defense attorneys, are just supposed to look the other way at soft fraud. That Auto Club lawyer is probably a member of the BN, because his approach was flawless.

Fraud is fraud, whether it’s soft fraud or Trevor Law Group fraud. If something is wrong when a non-club member rookie lawyer pushes it, it’s wrong when a charter member of the club pushes it. justsc is solidly in the club, and justsc has been practicing “soft fraud” so long that no one even notices their Trevor Law Group infractions any more. Judges and juries let “soft fraud” damage allegations go, and don’t seem to be too concerned. It takes a Trevor Law Group situation before anything happens. When the Trevor Law Group punishment came out, there was no lamenting or gnashing of teeth at how the cutting edge lawyers would be chilled from zealous advocacy, etc. But no one cares about soft fraud when it’s committed by anyone, from Pasadena Community College to justsc. It’s still fraud. It still is a violation of B & P Code section 17200, because it places the cheater at an advantage. But just as the personal injury giants in Southern California can do no wrong, the football giants can do no wrong because they are in the club and their excesses become the norm.

I personally think that bu$hgate is Trevor Law Group in stature. The ncaa thinks its at most soft fraud.

How do we get people to take notice? The Trevor Law Group got nailed by public outrage. It’s time to get people outraged about the constant soft fraud at justsc and what appears to me to be institutional Trevor Law Group behavior.

End of lecture.