JOHN LARSON VS THOMAS EDWARD FRAYSSE

Summary: Attorney Michael Blue's client was ordered to pay $165,442.58 in legal fees and costs because of an improper SLAPP lawsuit Mr. Blue's law firm filed.

Another judge found attorney Blue's lawsuit was improper. A court of appeal agreed. In this ruling the judge granted the defendant virtually all of its claimed fees and costs.



From the Judge and Court File:

Lawzilla note: To understand what previously happened in this case one has to review the original order dismissing the lawsuit and the court of appeal opinion. The recitation below is our understanding of what happened. Individual details are less important than knowing Mr. Blue and his law firm filed a lawsuit, the judge ruled it was improper, the court of appeal agreed, and the result is Mr. Blue's client must pay about $165,000 in attorney fees and costs.




A criminal lawsuit was filed alleging insurance fraud where healthcare providers were paying kickbacks to chiropractors and doctors to write prescriptions, and the fraudulent bills were submitted for payment to insurance carriers.

Attorneys representing the defrauded insurance carriers discovered one of the doctors involved in the scheme was working for clinics owned by John Larson. The attorneys suspected Larson was sharing in the kickbacks, and this was also indicated in a grand jury proceeding.

The attorneys met several times with Larson, or his attorney Michael Blue, discussing Larson's potential involvement in the criminal action. At various meetings everyone agreed they were settlement discussions and nothing said could be disclosed or used in any legal proceeding.

Larson, though, then sued the attorneys claiming extortion and that he was being shaken down for money to avoid being drawn into the criminal action. His attorney, Michael Blue, filed the lawsuit.

Defendants filed a SLAPP motion claiming the lawsuit involved matters protected by the litigation privilege and it was an improper SLAPP lawsuit.

The judge granted the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the lawsuit.



Attorney Blue then filed an appeal.

The court of appeal unanimously agreed the lawsuit was improper.

The appellate court said settlement discussions are protected activity. The goal is to avoid litigation and to allow candid, private discussions. The court further noted that Larson was pursuing settlement talks to avoid litigation.

The court of appeal then noted Larson and his attorney could not show the claims had merit. Larson could not prove extortion involving a threat to pay money to avoid a criminal proceeding.

The court of appeal made interesting comments that Larson's claims were too conclusionary to be of much value and did not support a claim of extortion.

Finally, the court of appeal said the litigation privilege barred the claims. Statements used in prelitigaton communications such as settlement talks cannot be used against a party to create liability.

The penalty for losing a SLAPP motion is having to pay the winning side's attorney fees and costs.



The court of appeal sent the case back to the trial court and defendants filed a motion to recover their fees and costs.

Michael Blue opposed the motion for fees and costs saying they were too high.

First, Michael Blue, Esq., proclaimed he had eight years of experience and his understanding is a reasonable fee would be $50,000 - not $160,000.

The judge said Michael Blue's "understanding" of legal fees is irrelevant and there is "no evidence" he is an expert in appellate litigation or fees.



Then attorney Blue made an argument saying because his legal brief was three times longer than his opponent they should have their fees reduced.

In a classic take-down the judge said Blue's long brief was not persuasive, which is why he lost at the court of appeal, and quotes Blase Pascal from the year 1657: "Forgive me for writing such a long letter; I did not have the time to make it shorter."



Finally, Mr. Blue claimed fewer fees were awarded in a different case.

The judge quickly noted that other case did not involve an appeal and Blue's argument was not persuasive and irrelevant.

Then the judge said the arguments put forth by attorney Blue did not raise a proper challenge to the fee request. The judge said the court would not do the work of an attorney for him to properly oppose a fee request.



The judge said Michael Blue's arguments were too general and did not suffice. This was similar to the comments by the court of appeal that attorney Blue's evidence and claims were too conclusionary and did not create a viable claim.





Lawzilla Commentary:

In our opinion this court ruling is one of the more brutal take-downs of an attorney we have seen from a judge. Rarely do we see a judge troll an attorney like what happened to Mr. Blue.

The court of appeal had noted Larson and his attorney could not show the claims had merit. Larson did not have the evidence of extortion involving a threat to pay money to avoid a criminal proceeding. In our opinion this seems like an incredibly important issue and any competent attorney would want this locked down before filing a lawsuit.

It could be Blue gets off on the wrong track by bragging in a declaration (and website) about having three bachelor's degrees. We doubt the judge cared and it seems to us irrelevant. Maybe he won a soccer award in the 8th grade too. It is cringeworthy to read.

The Los Angeles judge in this order made some incredible comments.

Attorney Michael Blue lacked "foundation" for his "understanding" defendants' legal fees were too high.

He presented "no evidence" he was an expert in appellate litigation.

He presented "no evidence" he was an expert in appellate fees.

The judge said his "understanding" was "irrelevant".

The Blase Pascal quote is striking for suggesting Blue's longer brief, that was not persuasive, reflected incompetence instead of a reason to-cut down legal fees.

The judge said an argument about excessive fees, drawn from a selected citation to one case involving lesser fees was not persuasive.

The court said Blue's argument failed to "raise a proper challenge" to the fee request. The judge said Michael Blue, Esq.'s argument was "general" and did "not suffice". The judge said the court would not do the work of an attorney.

Finally, for us it was literally laughable how the judge concluded by saying Michael Blue spent a "significant portion" of his 3-1/2 page argument claiming an attorney named Peter Scalisi should not recover more than $250 per hour for his work. The judge said "There is no indication that defendants seek to recover any amount of fees for Mr. Scalesi's work on the appeal". The judge then granted legal fees at $550 per hour, which attorney Michael Blue had not objected to.




As a matter of law attorney fees and costs from a SLAPP lawsuit can only be imposed against the client. Even if the attorney is completely at fault, and the attorney will be at fault for drafting and filing an improper lawsuit, the award is only against the client and not the attorney.

As a practical matter, the client can then sue the attorney for legal malpractice.

Would you hire Michael Blue to be your attorney?

Absolutely not.

$165,000 speaks for itself. So do the biting comments from the judge It is a huge award. Clients rely on attorneys to know what claims can be legally brought and what claims should not be filed. Michael Blue in our opinion failed in the basic evaluation requiring professional competency.

He then likely cost his client a lot of money by filing an appeal that was unanimously lost. The appellate justices did not seem impressed with Blue's legal abilities.

The trial judge certainly was not impressed as reflected by his "trolling" and taking-down of the attorney's arguments.

To us the situation is embarassing, repeatedly shows a lack of legal competence, and, of course, $165,000 speaks for itself.

What can you say about an attorney who only prepares a 3-1/2 page opposition to a motion seeking $165,000 in fees, and most of that is spent arguing about an attorney's fees which defendants were not even trying to recover?

Michael Blue was admitted to the California Bar in 2010. Bar Number 270471.

The Blue Law Group Inc.
8599 Haven Avenue, Suite 201
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730

Law School: Northwestern University