mark handler
SAWHORSE
Critics call him a shakedown artist, but Tom Frankovich considers himself a private attorney general fighting for the rights of the disabled
If you know anything at all about Thomas E. Frankovich, chances are you have a strong opinion about him. Make that a very strong opinion.
On behalf of his disabled clients, Frankovich specializes in suing businesses, mostly small ones, for failing to provide the access that's required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1210112300). By all appearances, the 65-year-old attorney has done exceedingly well. He owns one home in the tony Marin County town of Tiburon. Then there's the house and condo in Mazatlán, Mexico, and the century-old Victorian-style building in San Francisco's Cow Hollow that he sold in 2008 for $2.2 million. He also owns two ranches in Tehama County, where he keeps a herd of 140 bison.
For Tom Frankovich, life is good.
But as a part of that life, Frankovich has been called just about every name in the book - and a few names that some publishers won't print. Business owners have denounced Frankovich as a "shakedown artist" and an "extortionist." In 2004 a federal judge excoriated him for engaging in litigation practices "bordering on extortionate shysterism." And when a radio talk show recently had him on as a guest, enraged listeners phoned in to call him a "vampire," a "charlatan," and a "parasite."
Clearly, in his line of work you need to have a thick skin - not to mention a concealed weapons permit, which Frankovich obtained after receiving several death threats.
"I'm controversial," he allows. "I approach everything like Patton and Rommel would. I believe you go for the throat as soon as you know an early resolution isn't going to work. I have no fear about spending the last dime I have in litigation. You wanna fight, then be prepared for a trial, be prepared for an appeal, be prepared for me to go all the way. Every case to me is personal."
If Frankovich sounds more like a cowboy than an august member of the bar, that's just fine with him. His standard courtroom regalia: boots, jeans, a western shirt, and a white elk-skin coat, all topped by a mane of flowing gray hair.
He has a taste for Jim Beam and a love of military history. And his website prominently displays a sketch of himself commanding a tank. When Frankovich leaves phone messages, he often gives the time in military terms, as in "thirteen hundred hours" for 1 p.m. And when he tells you how much he admires Patton and Rommel, he admits that he likes Rommel more.
To many of his clients, he's a hero of sorts. "Thank God there are people like Tom Frankovich who will do these cases," says Marshall Loskot, a wheelchair user who lives near Red Bluff and has, since 1988, used Frankovich to file dozens of ADA lawsuits. "He's had a huge impact on access," Loskot adds. "He's part of the reason that about 75 percent of the world I travel in is accessible to me."
"One thing I'll say about Tom Frankovich, he's a formidable opponent," allows Jason G. Gong, a Walnut Creek attorney at the Livingston Law Firm who has faced off against him on several cases. "Some defense lawyers who might be relatively new to the area might find it easy to dismiss him. But that would be a mistake."
According to one estimate, at least 42 percent of the nation's ADA-related lawsuits are brought in California, making this state ground zero for access filings. It's not hard to understand why. In most states, ADA plaintiffs are entitled only to injunctive relief - that is, having an access issue remedied - plus attorneys fees. But in California, access violations also run afoul of the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a), 54(a)), which allow plaintiffs to tack state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits filed in federal court. And California law provides for treble damages, with a minimum of $4,000 per occurrence, plus attorneys fees.
That may not amount to much for a single case, but it can add up if you're filing dozens of cases every year. The statutory minimums per incident can also pile up if a particular plaintiff has been denied access on several occasions, since each instance is a separate violation under the statutes. (See Feezor v. Del Taco Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2005).) Still, only a very small group of practitioners - perhaps no more than 20 - generate the bulk of the filings. Frankovich himself usually files about 6 or 7 ADA suits per month, and has 50 cases going at a time.
To hear defense lawyers tell it, small, mom-and-pop-type businesses are particularly attractive targets for ADA suits, since they are most likely to settle quickly rather than mount a six-figure legal battle. David Warren Peters is CEO and general counsel of Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse, a San Diego law firm that represents defendants who have been sued for ADA access violations. "[A plaintiffs lawyer] can make 50 grand in an afternoon" with a lucky filing, he says. "It's unbelievably profitable."
There's no doubt that the Americans with Disabilities Act has made the world more accessible to millions of people with physical disabilities. But when the first President Bush signed this landmark law more than 20 years ago, it contained no provision for government enforcement of access rules. Instead, the act was to be policed largely through private causes of action. And while that's been a boon for the plaintiffs bar, it may not be the best or most efficient way to remove physical barriers.
"You have some defendants who blow their wad on litigation and then don't have money left to make changes," says Peters. At the same time, he adds, some plaintiffs make monetary settlements "that require almost nothing in the way of access, and it's wrapped in a very strict confidentiality provision. We've seen that done in hundreds of cases throughout the state."
Indeed, even the so-called frequent filers - disabled people who make significant amounts of money by filing multiple ADA claims with the help of lawyers like Frankovich - admit that getting defendants to make needed modifications remains a serious problem. "I know businesses that have been sued three and four times by different people because the owner didn't fix the problems," says Frankovich's client Marshall Loskot. "People will sign an agreement and pay you off and never do the fix. The [plaintiffs] lawyer just feels it's more cases for him, and I feel that's unethical." Loskot insists, however, that Frankovich doesn't operate that way.
But even if Frankovich is on the side of the angels, to many of the business owners he sues, he's the devil incarnate. This doesn't seem to bother Frankovich a bit. "When ADA litigation picks up in a neighborhood, people say, 'Oh my God, they're suing the mom and pops; there's a predator loose,' " he says with mock horror. "Everyone kind of forgets that mom and pop is the tenant, but the landlord has owned the million-dollar building since the ADA was passed in 1990 and has taken no measures to make it accessible." (In general, landlords and tenants are jointly responsible for compliance with access laws, but they are free to shift responsibility between them by contract.)
"The hammer of litigation is the only thing that gets small business to comply with the law," he adds. "Litigation becomes a necessity because businesses have a 'wait until I'm sued' attitude."
Of course, with lawyers like Tom Frankovich around, they usually don't have long to wait.
Like a lot of people these days, Gwen Sanderson holds down two jobs. One of them is running a small video and DVD store tucked away in San Francisco's Noe Valley. The other is dealing with an ADA complaint that Frankovich filed against her and her business partner six months ago on behalf of two disabled clients (Ramirez v. Video Wave of Noe Valley, No. 11-CV-278 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2011)).
Sanderson has consulted multiple disability-access specialists, building inspectors, and small-business organizations and attended a Bar Association of San Francisco workshop in an effort to find out exactly what modifications she needs to make to bring her 400-square-foot store into compliance with the ADA and California's access laws. And though she's heard different things from different experts, she's nevertheless moved forward with several alterations, purchasing a portable ramp so wheelchair users can negotiate the two- to six-inch step at the store's entrance, installing a door buzzer along with signs instructing disabled customers to ring for assistance, and hiring a state-certified access specialist to inspect her shop. But these measures came too late to head off the lawsuit, which has left her feeling both victimized and resentful.
"It's been a big waste of my time and resources," she laments. "I've spent about $3,000 so far and we work at break-even; we don't have any money in the bank. I borrowed money to retain my lawyer."
the article contiues
http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?eid=919801
If you know anything at all about Thomas E. Frankovich, chances are you have a strong opinion about him. Make that a very strong opinion.
On behalf of his disabled clients, Frankovich specializes in suing businesses, mostly small ones, for failing to provide the access that's required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1210112300). By all appearances, the 65-year-old attorney has done exceedingly well. He owns one home in the tony Marin County town of Tiburon. Then there's the house and condo in Mazatlán, Mexico, and the century-old Victorian-style building in San Francisco's Cow Hollow that he sold in 2008 for $2.2 million. He also owns two ranches in Tehama County, where he keeps a herd of 140 bison.
For Tom Frankovich, life is good.
But as a part of that life, Frankovich has been called just about every name in the book - and a few names that some publishers won't print. Business owners have denounced Frankovich as a "shakedown artist" and an "extortionist." In 2004 a federal judge excoriated him for engaging in litigation practices "bordering on extortionate shysterism." And when a radio talk show recently had him on as a guest, enraged listeners phoned in to call him a "vampire," a "charlatan," and a "parasite."
Clearly, in his line of work you need to have a thick skin - not to mention a concealed weapons permit, which Frankovich obtained after receiving several death threats.
"I'm controversial," he allows. "I approach everything like Patton and Rommel would. I believe you go for the throat as soon as you know an early resolution isn't going to work. I have no fear about spending the last dime I have in litigation. You wanna fight, then be prepared for a trial, be prepared for an appeal, be prepared for me to go all the way. Every case to me is personal."
If Frankovich sounds more like a cowboy than an august member of the bar, that's just fine with him. His standard courtroom regalia: boots, jeans, a western shirt, and a white elk-skin coat, all topped by a mane of flowing gray hair.
He has a taste for Jim Beam and a love of military history. And his website prominently displays a sketch of himself commanding a tank. When Frankovich leaves phone messages, he often gives the time in military terms, as in "thirteen hundred hours" for 1 p.m. And when he tells you how much he admires Patton and Rommel, he admits that he likes Rommel more.
To many of his clients, he's a hero of sorts. "Thank God there are people like Tom Frankovich who will do these cases," says Marshall Loskot, a wheelchair user who lives near Red Bluff and has, since 1988, used Frankovich to file dozens of ADA lawsuits. "He's had a huge impact on access," Loskot adds. "He's part of the reason that about 75 percent of the world I travel in is accessible to me."
"One thing I'll say about Tom Frankovich, he's a formidable opponent," allows Jason G. Gong, a Walnut Creek attorney at the Livingston Law Firm who has faced off against him on several cases. "Some defense lawyers who might be relatively new to the area might find it easy to dismiss him. But that would be a mistake."
According to one estimate, at least 42 percent of the nation's ADA-related lawsuits are brought in California, making this state ground zero for access filings. It's not hard to understand why. In most states, ADA plaintiffs are entitled only to injunctive relief - that is, having an access issue remedied - plus attorneys fees. But in California, access violations also run afoul of the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a), 54(a)), which allow plaintiffs to tack state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits filed in federal court. And California law provides for treble damages, with a minimum of $4,000 per occurrence, plus attorneys fees.
That may not amount to much for a single case, but it can add up if you're filing dozens of cases every year. The statutory minimums per incident can also pile up if a particular plaintiff has been denied access on several occasions, since each instance is a separate violation under the statutes. (See Feezor v. Del Taco Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2005).) Still, only a very small group of practitioners - perhaps no more than 20 - generate the bulk of the filings. Frankovich himself usually files about 6 or 7 ADA suits per month, and has 50 cases going at a time.
To hear defense lawyers tell it, small, mom-and-pop-type businesses are particularly attractive targets for ADA suits, since they are most likely to settle quickly rather than mount a six-figure legal battle. David Warren Peters is CEO and general counsel of Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse, a San Diego law firm that represents defendants who have been sued for ADA access violations. "[A plaintiffs lawyer] can make 50 grand in an afternoon" with a lucky filing, he says. "It's unbelievably profitable."
There's no doubt that the Americans with Disabilities Act has made the world more accessible to millions of people with physical disabilities. But when the first President Bush signed this landmark law more than 20 years ago, it contained no provision for government enforcement of access rules. Instead, the act was to be policed largely through private causes of action. And while that's been a boon for the plaintiffs bar, it may not be the best or most efficient way to remove physical barriers.
"You have some defendants who blow their wad on litigation and then don't have money left to make changes," says Peters. At the same time, he adds, some plaintiffs make monetary settlements "that require almost nothing in the way of access, and it's wrapped in a very strict confidentiality provision. We've seen that done in hundreds of cases throughout the state."
Indeed, even the so-called frequent filers - disabled people who make significant amounts of money by filing multiple ADA claims with the help of lawyers like Frankovich - admit that getting defendants to make needed modifications remains a serious problem. "I know businesses that have been sued three and four times by different people because the owner didn't fix the problems," says Frankovich's client Marshall Loskot. "People will sign an agreement and pay you off and never do the fix. The [plaintiffs] lawyer just feels it's more cases for him, and I feel that's unethical." Loskot insists, however, that Frankovich doesn't operate that way.
But even if Frankovich is on the side of the angels, to many of the business owners he sues, he's the devil incarnate. This doesn't seem to bother Frankovich a bit. "When ADA litigation picks up in a neighborhood, people say, 'Oh my God, they're suing the mom and pops; there's a predator loose,' " he says with mock horror. "Everyone kind of forgets that mom and pop is the tenant, but the landlord has owned the million-dollar building since the ADA was passed in 1990 and has taken no measures to make it accessible." (In general, landlords and tenants are jointly responsible for compliance with access laws, but they are free to shift responsibility between them by contract.)
"The hammer of litigation is the only thing that gets small business to comply with the law," he adds. "Litigation becomes a necessity because businesses have a 'wait until I'm sued' attitude."
Of course, with lawyers like Tom Frankovich around, they usually don't have long to wait.
Like a lot of people these days, Gwen Sanderson holds down two jobs. One of them is running a small video and DVD store tucked away in San Francisco's Noe Valley. The other is dealing with an ADA complaint that Frankovich filed against her and her business partner six months ago on behalf of two disabled clients (Ramirez v. Video Wave of Noe Valley, No. 11-CV-278 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2011)).
Sanderson has consulted multiple disability-access specialists, building inspectors, and small-business organizations and attended a Bar Association of San Francisco workshop in an effort to find out exactly what modifications she needs to make to bring her 400-square-foot store into compliance with the ADA and California's access laws. And though she's heard different things from different experts, she's nevertheless moved forward with several alterations, purchasing a portable ramp so wheelchair users can negotiate the two- to six-inch step at the store's entrance, installing a door buzzer along with signs instructing disabled customers to ring for assistance, and hiring a state-certified access specialist to inspect her shop. But these measures came too late to head off the lawsuit, which has left her feeling both victimized and resentful.
"It's been a big waste of my time and resources," she laments. "I've spent about $3,000 so far and we work at break-even; we don't have any money in the bank. I borrowed money to retain my lawyer."
the article contiues
http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?eid=919801