Has the Trevor Law Group Reformed?

Last night when I was doing one of my favorite things, I came upon an add that seemed pretty shocking to me.  I'd encourage you to read the full ad (it's here) after reading what I've highlighted below.  The add, which encourages offers an "interesting future" for a "talented attorney" begins:

We have over 130 active cases and growing, primarily in the practice of wage and hour law inclusive of class actions and we are looking for additional counsel to handle the expanding workload.

Seems rather bland, but let's continue reading:

We take the initiative and aggressively litigate each case. We do not tolerate delaying tactics as early resolution is our objective. As a result almost all cases are settled and are rarely tried.

It's true as a general matter that almost all cases are settled.  But lawyers truly looking out for their client's best interest always prepare a case with a mind towards trial.  Early resolution is good only to the extent that it's in the client's best interest.  There's a reason that personal injury lawyers are called trial lawyers, even though few trial lawyers try more than a couple of cases a year.

Here, though, the ad seems to suggest that the goal of the lawsuits is to encourage early settlements.  Indeed, the ad's author (a lawyer who I found after some sleuthing) notes that he "only want[s] to work with those individuals whose thinking resonates with the concepts expressed above." 

Still, though the suggestion that cases should be settled early is not entirely offensive, I guess, though it does seem rather suspicious that lawyers are suing with an eye towards settlement, since defendants rarely offer generous settlements to clients represented by lawyers unwilling to take cases to trial.  Anyhow, it felt a little shady.  And then I saw something that made my jaw drop:

In assessing the nature of the work and return on time spent it is helpful to keep in mind that the burden of proof is always on the employer to establish that he has paid the correct wages. The law requires that the employer keep accurate and timely maintained records that show hours worked and amounts paid.  Failure to maintain such records is almost always at the heart of the case ....

Maybe there's an innocent explanation for this, but I read the above as saying this: We don't look for clients who have been wronged.  Rather, we sue employers knowing that it's unlikely they'll be able to produce records that will prove us wrong.  This case is starting to sound like a scumbag settlement mill. The ad goes on:

Furthermore the employer will be liable for our legal fees if he is unable to defense the case.

These two elements [the inability to prove us wrong and threat of attorneys fees] provide our clients with extraordinary leverage to resolve the matter.

Wow!  In other words, let's just sue someone, hope he can't produce any employment records to contradict us, threaten him with attorneys fees, and then settle the case post haste.  Screw the employer and screw the client.  But at least we'll get rich!  How is anyone besides the lawyer served by this?

Is my reading overly suspicious, or does the ad smell fishy to you, too?

Comments

[NormPattis]

Mike:

Sounds like one of the many fee-generating mills out there. I wasn't offended when I read ad. Guy knows his market. Not appealing to me, but ...

N

[anon]

I am not so sure of this. They may only take cases that they feel that they can win, and they probably specialize in suing defendants that are so miserable that there is no way that they can win. Indeed, with good screening, finding such clients isn’t that hard.

Ironically, this is a fairly common tactic amongst many lawyers – especially certain government agencies.

As to attorneys fees, they are provided for by statute, and they are, therefore an element of settlement.

[Mike]

Maybe I'm just getting grumpy in my old years...

[mythago]

By itself, the other stuff doesn't ring any alarm bells (granted, I am an evil plaintiff's lawyer, but the part about leverage was a red-flag. And yes, defendants don't take you seriously unless they are sure you will take them to trial.

[Carl E. Person]

Why should the civil side be any different from the criminal side. New York felony cases have about a 96% to 98% settlement (plea bargaining) rate. The remaining defendants (who go to criminal trial) lose, probably to the extent of 85% to 95%. I would prefer our civil system in which both sides reach an agreement giving some justice to the plaintiff underdog than our criminal justice system that finds almost everyone guilty (whether by extortionate plea bargaining or oppressively biased trial procedures, costs and disproportionate representation).
Carl E. Person

[Danny]

Looks reminiscent of the shakedown lawyers and their professional sue-ers (an apropos description of the so-called 'citizen enforcers' or 'bounty hunters' who make money off of the 'clean water proposition') who are attacking purveyors of glassware (glasses, bottles, etc) which have painted logos on the outside. It seems that some of these baked-on logos hae paint which contains lead and since lead is on the massive list of items that Proposition 65 enforces... they roam around suing unaware people for not having warning signs at the point of purchase. You can see how many millions they've made by checking out the California Attorney General's website.

[Miriam]

I've been screwed over by my own attorneys on a high profile case I couldn't lose; the State's case was a mockery, illegal search and PROVABLE evidence tampering. Yes, attorneys will screw their clients (i.e. if you utilize the bar to request a copy of your file for example) and many care just about your money. I read a good article once: Ask your attorney if he likes to argue in front of a judge or jury; if the former, run like hell, he/she isn't representing you, but are friends of the State.

I'm against plea bargaining. Often the defendants chance and only chance to be judged by PEERS, NOT LAWYERS MAKING A DEAL WITH JUDGES WHO ARE OFTEN X-PROSECUTORS. I personally would obliterate plea bargains and then the prosecutor might actually have to be more selective in who they prosecute and actually have a case.