“Basically An Extortionist”

An interesting bar discipline matter is described by the California Bar Journal as follows;

Brar [the attorney] gained notoriety in 2003 for filing hundreds of lawsuits thatthen-Attorney General Bill Lockyer said violated the state UnfairCompetition Law, also known as §17200 of the Business &Professions Code. Lockyer accused Brar of engaging in illegal businesspractices and called his firm “a quick-buck racket that has inflictedfinancial harm on law-abiding small business owners.”

  Inrecommending his disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Richard Honn saidBrar “has engaged in a nearly continuous course of serious misconduct”since shortly after his 2000 admission to the bar. He “used the legalsystem as part of a scheme to extract settlements from small businessesfor his own enrichment and in violation of court orders preventing himfrom doing so,” Honn wrote in the disbarment recommendation. The judgesaid Brar’s actions amount to “serious breaches” of an attorney’sfundamental ethical mores. 

Brar sued more than 400 nail salonowners in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, alleging theyviolated health and safety codes by using the same bottle of nailpolish on more than one customer. His firm, Brar & Gamulin, alsosued 140 ethnic grocery stores, charging them with video piracy for notlabeling videotapes correctly. In 2004, Orange County Superior CourtJudge Peter Polos ordered Brar to pay nearly $1.8 million in civilpenalties as well as sanctions and enjoined him from filing any morecases under 17200 without meeting requirements in the Civil Code. Thejudge called Brar “basically an extortionist.”

  Despite theorder, Brar filed three new lawsuits under 17200 within nine months,accusing 237 named defendants and 750 “Doe” defendants of not postingnotices of fees charged at ATM machines in their stores. Most of thedefendants owned liquor or convenience stores. There was norelationship among the defendants and no question of common fact amongthem. As was his pattern in earlier lawsuits, Brar sent the defendantsthreatening letters in which he offered to settle the matter forroughly $750 and encouraged a quick settlement in order to avoidadditional fees and costs. 

Polos held Brar in contempt and sentenced him to 15 days in jail.

  Priorto the Orange County judgment, Brar had filed suit against 55 nameddefendants and 100 Does for allegedly violating the ImmigrationConsultants Act by failing to post a bond required by the code. Honnfound that Brar filed the matters “for an improper purpose, namely toconduct volume litigation . . . with minimal overhead so as to maximizeprofits from settlements.” By improperly joining defendants, Braravoided paying filing fees of $185 each for separate actions. 

Thebar court found that Brar committed 17 acts of misconduct: he disobeyedcourt orders, filed unjust actions, committed acts of moral turpitude,failed to pay court-ordered sanctions and did not cooperate with thebar’s investigation. He never paid any civil penalties or sanctions.

  Braralso was convicted of five felony counts of tax evasion last July andis currently serving one year in the county jail. The bar placed him oninterim suspension following the convictions. He has been ineligible topractice law since March 2007.

(Mike Frisch)