Contingency fee lawyers – the other urban terrorists

The war in Iraq continues and we are all concerned about our men and women in harm’s way, risking their lives to protect us from terrorism. While we’ve been watching this war on television there are daily threats to our safety. Not too long ago, the Palo Verde Nuclear Reactor in Arizona was singled out as a target. Around the same time this occurred, the government sent me some sort of iodine pill I am supposed to take if the terrorists ever succeed in blowing up the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant which is five miles from my home. Yes, there are a lot of bad guys out there who want to hurt me, just because I am an American.

Well, there are other Urban Terrorists who desire to hurt me just because I do asset protection consulting. Here are the details: Several months ago I was sued (along with two very famous and solid asset protection attorneys from Florida) by a plaintiff’s firm (translation: Contingent fee lawyers) who are
alleging, among other things, that asset protection is an “unfair business practice” under California law. They don’t claim that I harmed a client or that my work was not effective; just that asset protection, in general, is somehow illegal.

These Urban Terrorists claim that asset protection is against public policy and seek to gain an injunction to stop three mainstream asset protection practitioners in particular and the industry in general. Their weapon is the legal equivalent of a “dirty bomb”: California’s Business and professions code section 17200.

Pet Peeves

newsletter signup

[forminator_form id=”1485″]