Trevor Law Suing Attorney General in Counter Strike
By CHRIS CZIBORR
Trevor Law Group LLP is engaging state Attorney General Bill Lockyer in a tit-for-tat.
The Beverly Hills law firm, which has sued hundreds of businesses across Orange County, recently filed a motion against Lockyer, accusing him of trying to stifle the firm’s free speech right.
Trevor Law partners and their attorney, Beverly Hills-based Kevin Gerry, allege Lockyer’s February lawsuit against the firm is a “strategic lawsuit against public participation”,also known as a SLAPP suit.
Ironically, as a state senator Lockyer wrote California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which was signed into law in the early 1990s and gives people broad protection against being sued for expressing opinions.
In Lockyer’s suit against Trevor Law, the attorney general used the state Business and Professions 17200 code,the same consumer protection provision Trevor Law has used to go after auto repair shops, restaurants and other businesses for minor violations.
Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said the anti-SLAPP statute wasn’t written with the likes of Trevor Law in mind.
“The statute does not protect lawyers who break the law and who file abusive lawsuits,” he said. “The attorney general has the authority and responsibility to pursue enforcement actions for violations of statutes, and to bring those actions on behalf of the people of California.”
California’s anti-SLAPP law, which was updated in 1997, aims to prevent corporations, real estate developers and government officials from using lawsuits to quiet critics of their projects.
Trevor Law representative Gerry did not return a call seeking comment. Trevor Law officials said they were unable to provide comment at Gerry’s behest.
Ed Sybesma, a partner with Costa Mesa-based Rutan & Tucker LLP and a Trevor Law critic, said he doesn’t believe the firm’s anti-SLAPP motion will gain court approval because of the fraud allegations mounted against it.
“They’ve got a superficial claim,” he contended. “And the strength of the evidence available against them is so overwhelming that there is no way the court would grant their motion. I understand why they made the motion. But if their position was taken literally, there would never be any sanctions available for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, which would be counter to the entire history of Western law.”
Sybesma represents Nashville-based Bridgestone/Firestone Americas Holding Inc., part of Japan’s Bridgestone Corp. and owner of a La Habra repair shop sued by Trevor Law.
