Prop 64: a good fix or a disaster?

10 reasons lawyers should vote yes

Sullivan

By John H. Sullivan

For years plaintiffs’ lawyers have blocked every legislative attempt to enact reasonable amendments to stop legalized shakedowns under Business & Professions Code 17200. Seldom has an initiative been more justified.

Ten reasons why every California lawyer should vote yes on Proposition 64:

1. Support a narrowly drawn amendment: In the words of the state’s Legislative Analyst, Proposition 64: (a) “. . . prohibits private attorneys from bringing legal action for unfair competition when they have no client who has suffered injury and lost money or property,” and (b) “. . . requires that private attorneys pursuing representative claims or relief on behalf of others meet the class action requirements to bring legal action under the unfair competition law.”

2. Boost our profession’s image: “Virtually all the lawyers I know work very hard to benefit our clients. But it’s easy for the public to think that all lawyers are. . . cynical . . ., while our politicians fail to reform laws that encourage the kind of piracy you describe. The result is declining public respect for lawyers

. . .” — from a Manhattan Beach lawyer’s letter to the Los Angeles Times.

3. Restore respect for the law: “Misguided or abusive cases litigated under the UCL’s private right of action have a significant impact on law enforcement and the protection of the general public. These inappropriate lawsuits generate damaging appellate precedent; interfere with legitimate law enforcement investigations and prosecutions; and undermine the public respect and support for the UCL.” — from an amicus brief filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

4. End a threat to new Californians attempting to build a life: “Many of these immigrants saw first-hand in their native countries the ruinous effects of restrictive laws, red tape and corruption. . . . Now, as victims of the lawyers pushing the UCL to its limit, thousands of shop owners and their families are again experiencing unjust barriers in making a living.” — Nhan T. Vu, assistant professor of law, Chapman University.

5. Protect the First Amendment:  “. . . a private ‘false advertising’ action brought on behalf of the state, by one who has suffered no injury, threatens to impose a serious burden upon speech — at least if extended to encompass the type of speech at issue under the standards of liability that California law provides. . .” — Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting to dismissal of the Nike, Inc. v. Kasky 17200/First Amendment case as improvidently granted.

 6. Stop legal extortion of small businesses: “The small businesses in my district are keeping the economy alive. . . I consider any effort to extort money from them or force them into closure is a direct attack against the financial security of the state of California.” — Assembly-woman Judy Chu, Monterey Park.

7. Protect your State Bar dues dollars: “[State Bar chief trial counsel Mike] Nisperos said lead investigator John Noonen and bar attorneys Jayne Kim and Kimberly Anderson led a task force of some 40 people who devoted more than 8,000 hours to the investigation.” — State Bar news release announcing petition “to enroll inactive” three Trevor Law Group attorneys who used §17200 against small business owners.

8. Help keep California on the path to economic recovery: “Proposition 64 will stop the legal practice of shakedown lawsuits, in which private lawyers file suits without any client or any evidence of harm. This turns lawyers into bounty hunters, stalking innocent small businesses that create jobs and opportunity in California. . . . By working together with an agenda of recovery and reform, California is on the rebound. We need to keep the momentum going in the right direction, by voting yes on Proposition 64.” — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

9. Stop shakedowns without hindering environmental or consumer protection: Proposition 64 will not bar consumers or environmentalists or their organizations from the courthouse when they are represented by competent lawyers who have legitimate clients with genuine complaints and know the full range of laws and remedies available in the state and federal civil justice systems. Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. and Consumers Union v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy are among cases cited by the initiative’s proponents. Look at any of these closely and you find that each involved public prosecutors, actual harm, or other more-dominant complaints (or a combination of these) — the outcome would not have been different if Proposition 64 had been in effect. For a review of these cases see: http://www.stopshakedownlawsuits. com/facts_environment.html

10. Take the cure: If you are participating in what a California Law Revision spokesman described as the “huge underground economy in 17200 claims,” Proposition 64 is your chance for a fresh start. If you truly want to protect consumers or the environment, then you’ll find plenty of specific statutes written for these purposes under an amended 17200.  Or maybe you should go to work for a district attorney or the attorney general. If you’re a new attorney who has learned to operate the Trevor model under the radar, consider what they tell wannabe race drivers who aren’t up to the standards of the craft: “OSB” (Other Sports Beckon).