A cruise ship sank in the Caribbean. Everyone was lost, savagely attacked by sharks. The only six people that survived were the six lawyers who were onboard. Why didn't the sharks attack them? Professional courtesy …
Lawyer jokes: They come in waves and choke up your electronic mailbox. They are as irrepressible as the tide because lawyers constitute one group almost everyone loves to hate. Some of these jokes are tasteful, almost clever. Others are completely tasteless. Some make you groan. Some make you wince, and some make you laugh out loud.
This lawyer story I'm about to relate is a joke, too. The only difference is, it's on us and it isn't very funny. It reads more like a Hollywood screenplay than it does real life: fear tactics, strong-arm techniques, the use of public opinion as a bludgeon – all familiar weapons in the arsenal of bully. And, yet, the script is far too real for those garage owners in Orange and Los Angeles Counties caught and then victimized by a group of unscrupulous lawyers who slithered into town one night and set up shop under the guise of consumer advocacy.
It's the same old tired B-movie plot, only this time with a new twist. Allegedly acting as an advocate on behalf of the consumer, these lawyers bring suit against registered automotive repair shops accused of violating Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code.
What constitutes a violation? Well, the section referenced reads something like this:
17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
I would have included Section 17500, but the first sentence in that section is 229 words long, has 29 commas and is about as clear as mud. It is written by lawyers, for lawyers, with the express purpose of keeping 'normal' people from understanding it and therefore, out of the game. In essence, section 17500 enumerates all the things you cannot do to mislead the public. Unfortunately, writing in 'legalese' was not included. What was included, however, was a clear description of the up to six months in jail and/or the $2,500 fine awaiting anyone guilty of violating the code.
A violation can be anything from a legitimately unprofessional and illegal business practice to the record of a minor infraction. This could be something as simple as a lapse in registration, which can easily occur if you change the name or the "official" ownership of your business without actually changing principals. It might occur when implementing a living trust, or any one of a number of other innocuous and very benign situations that then become "violations." Each of these can result in what is referred to by the Bureau of Automotive Repair as an NOV: a Notice of Violation.
Interestingly enough, according to Katie Jacobs of Jacobs & Gregory, the legal counsel for the Automotive Service Councils of California, there does not seem to be any legal/legislative authorization for these NOVs. They are for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a warning. Unfortunately, however, the judge hearing each individual case is not likely to find that out until too many shop owners have gone down the legal drain.
Trevor & Associates, the law firm bringing these actions, has formed a group called "Consumer Enforcement Watch Corp." Under the guise of consumer advocacy, the firm has brought suit against more than 1,162 automotive centers in California to date. Originally, Bridgestone/ Firestone was enjoined in these proceedings in the hope of a deep pocket payday. However, when it became apparent that Bridgestone/Firestone wasn't going to go down without a fight and was actually prepared to litigate each individual case, the CEWC dropped them from its suit in Orange County (without prejudice). They (CEWC) then filed a new lawsuit in Los Angeles County in which Bridgestone/Firestone is a defendant.
The way the game is played, a shop is contacted by a CEWC representative and informed of the potential litigation. The shop is then allowed to "settle" for $500 to $2,000, significantly less than it would cost to defend the suit in court. What those shops may not realize is that the agreement they are being asked to sign allows the CEWC to come back and take them apart financially if for any reason they receive another NOV during the term of the settlement regardless of the reason.
There are currently a number of industry associations working diligently to alert the California State Legislature, the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Bureau of Automotive Repair to the consequences of this legalized extortion, but as of yet there has been no movement and less action. Formal complaints have been presented to the California State BAR Association charging unethical conduct. But, it seems no one wants to be identified as 'anti-consumer,' even if that means turning your back on illegal, immoral and unethical behavior, so nothing is really being done to stop this practice from continuing.
If you are doing business in California and a representative of the Consumer Enforcement Watch Corp. contacts you, there are some things you can do. Document the conversation: the name of the individual you spoke with; exactly who the person said they represented, as well as the details of the actual conversation documented as carefully as possible. Then, contact one of the groups actively involved in defending the industry like the Automotive Service Councils of California or the Automotive Repair Coalition. In other words, don't lie down for these guys. Fight back! Just remember that these thugs have instituted a legal action that will require a response and that means you will have to retain an attorney of your own, preferably someone more capable, more calculating and, yes, more vicious than they are.
Now that I have fulfilled my obligation as a responsible journalist by providing critical and relevant information as objectively as possible, I'd like to address this issue as a shop owner: a shop owner doing business in the affected area. This will not be reasonable, and it will not be objective. So, if you are looking for objectivity and reason, you can look someplace else.
I'm furious! Enraged, actually. I've had it ... tired of being the victim . . . tired of having the media paint me as a crook while the activities of those actually engaged in crooked behavior goes unreported. I'm tired of being afraid – afraid to defend myself because my actions might be misconstrued as 'anti-consumer.' Won't this kind of extortion drive prices higher as shop owners are forced to bear the financial burden of defending themselves against causeless actions like this? Who will ultimately pay the price for these legal actions if it isn't the motorist? So who is acting in the best interest of the consumer anyway ... because you and I both know it isn't the CEWC.
I never believed that responsible professionals could be involved in such a 'frivolous' activity when there are so many more important ways for them to spend their time and apply their talents. I never believed a capricious lawsuit could be so malignant or malicious, but evidently it can.
It's not in my nature to be a victim, not in my nature to take something like this passively. I can't just sit here and let it happen even though it isn't happening to me ... yet.
If I remain frozen, paralyzed, unable to act, who will there be to help me if and when it's my turn to stare these bullies down?
I won't run, and I won't back down. In fact, I like a good fight every once in awhile, and being a shop owner for 36 years, I'm used to the odds being stacked against me.
But, what else can you do?
You can refuse to work for them. You can ask a potentially new client what they do for a living, and if they practice law, you can respectfully explain the plague their brethren have wrought upon your industry. And then politely tell them that they can walk.
You can be too busy ... or, too angry to work for someone who thinks a cheap suit has nothing to do with clothing. You can tell them they can walk until they put enough pressure on their colleagues or on the BAR Association to force an end to this kind of legal shakedown.
If you think I'm being unreasonable or too harsh, I would disagree. I believe that every generalization is wrong, dangerous in fact – including the one that suggests that all lawyers are bad. That is no more accurate than saying that every automotive shop owner is dishonest or unethical or unscrupulous or guilty of ripping off the public. It just isn't true. But, there are people within every group who either can't tell the difference between right and wrong or just don't care. There are people in every segment of the population who are interested in fast money, a quick buck, regardless of who pays the price or gets hurt in the process. And, there are people in our society who are willing to pervert their education and ability for personal gain.
This particular story might not seem terribly relevant if you are not doing business in California. So, why should you get involved? Why should you care? The statute in question is a part of California law and so far, this problem hasn't surfaced anyplace else. That is because the per capita percentage of attorneys here is the highest in the nation, with the possible exception of Washington, DC.
Why should you care if a bunch of pirates, brigands, bandits, buccaneers and bullies in California shake down a bigger bunch of helpless, hapless independent shop owners halfway across the country? If these pirates are successful here, it is only a matter of time before their appetites increase and they start looking at consumer protection legislation in other states for other ways to pervert the law. And one of the other states they look at just may be yours. So, you really have no choice but to remain aware … no choice but to get involved.
If I've offended anyone, I apologize. In the end, I feel much the same way about lawyers that I do about guns: I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. I'd rather have a 'good' lawyer on my team – someone with my best interest at heart (as well as their own), someone acting as my advocate – than have to go looking for one in a crisis.
What about lawyer jokes? I try to restrain myself as much as I can. You see most lawyers don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.
