Cliff Chanler

Excerpted from the full length article at Prop. 65 News:

As You Sow’s complaint against Clifford Chanler is based on a mixture of contract, tort and statutory theories, including breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and misappropriation of trade secrets. In addition to Chanler, it names private litigant Michael DiPirro, and attorneys David Bush and Eric Somers as codefendants under at least some of these theories.

The breach of contract allegation centers on billing practices and an alleged $493,000 in office expenses which AYS says it advanced to Chanler but never received back. These expenses, the complaint alleges, included non-case-specific fax and photocopying charges, postage, telephone bills, office supplies, “overtime meals” for Chanler’s staff, taxi fares and on-line research fees. Despite “numerous requests,” the complaint alleged, Chanler provided time records and fee accounting on only two “isolated instances.”

The complaint also alleges that whenever AYS objected to Chanler’s fees, he countered that the applicable Proposition 65 settlement would “fall apart” if AYS did not agree to the fees. In addition, the complaint contends that Chanler repeatedly asserted courts had approved his fees as reasonable.

The fraud theory is based on many of the same allegations plus a charge that Chanler misrepresented himself to AYS as “a public interest lawyer who shared the environmental goals and philosophies of AYS and would undertake the work in behalf of AYS on a contingent basis that was favorable to AYS.” To the contrary, the complaint says, “Chanler crated and intended to use AYS as a vehicle to make money for Chanler and not to further the environmental goals and philosophies of AYS.”...

...AYS is represented by Thomas Hyde of the Hyde Law Corporation in San Francisco. The complaint was filed on January 19. Chanler is represented by James Boughey of the San Francisco firm of Boughey, Garvie & Bushner. link to source.

Excerpted from the full length article at the San Francisco Daily Journal:

The measure [SB1269] allows private organizations to keep 25% of any of the money they win in penalties. Such cases rarely go to trial, however, and in the past some groups have come under fire for reaching settlements that gave plaintiffs huge attorney fees and relatively low penalties; the latter must be shared with state and local agencies.

In 1994, for example, the attorney general accused one prominent Proposition 65 plaintiffs group, As You Sow, of collecting more than $1 million in costs and fees “and not a single penny of penalties or restitution.”

That organization is now locked in a bitter San Francisco court fight with its former attorney, whom it accuses of keeping 85% of the more than $8 million the organization won in Proposition 65 cases. The lawyer, Clifford Chanler, has called the complained baseless.

Business also complains of varying standards for what qualifies as “clear and reasonable” warning under the statue, the fundamental test for whether a product is in compliance with the initiative. link to source.
 

Excerpted from the full length article in Prop. 65 News:

LaMura, who at one point held up a plastic bag filled with a sample of resin “so we can put a face on it,” added, “The levels of exposure for our manufacturing plant are within the requirements for OSHA, while [As You Sow] will have you believe that the vapors escaping from the quarter-inch opening of nail polish are harmful and require a warning label.”

La Mura, like other small business owners who testified, had been on the receiving end of a 60-day notice letter signed by AYS’s former attorney, Clifford Chanler. Yet, Chemcoat Labs has never employed more than eight people, she said, which would exempt her from Proposition 65.

Sandra Skommesa, president of Ellis Paint Co. in Los Angeles, said that her company was sued by Chanler and As You Sow over the language of a warning label that contained a comma, in lieu of the word “and.” Skommesa, who eventually settled the suit after spending $68,000 on attorney’s fees and other related costs, nonetheless agreed that her product should be labeled, and said she considers relabeling a part of doing business.

Chanler, who declined an invitation to participate at the hearing, did send a brief letter to the committee asserting his intent to submit testimony.

Mark Golden, president of Golden Artists Colors Inc. in New Berlin, N.Y., said that “at best, these warning potentially are unnecessary and confusing.” He said it cost his company $250,000 to relabel its products after a Proposition 65 suit alleged they were improperly labeled due to their cadmium content. The warning will hurt sales, he said.

Representative Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) was more positive about the law’s potential health benefits. “I believe consumers need to know about this so they can protect themselves,” she told Golden. Yet, she still asked a number of questions about the effects of Propositions 65 on small businesses. Voicing her concerns to Golden about whether 401k plans and about whether employee benefits would be affected, Golden Replied “yes.” link to source.

Excerpted from the full article at the San Francisco Daily Journal:

Two lawyers are poised to unleash a flood of lawsuits against a slew of major companies alleging that they are failing to warn the public about the dangers of flame retardants in their products.

The controversy centers on the cancer-causing chemical chlorinated tris, which regulators recently listed under the state’s unique toxics warning law Proposition 65. The 1986 voter initiative requires companies to alert the public if they could be exposed to hazardous levels of hundreds of different chemicals.

Since the requirement to warn over tris began in October, lawyers for a nonprofit and a few individuals allege they have found high levels of tris in everything from upholstered furniture to crib mattresses to children’s nap pads.

The two firms, The Chanler Group and the Lexington Law Group, have threatened to sue around 100 companies including J.C. Penney, Wal-Mart, Munchkin and Graco Children’s Products alleging they are failing to post Proposition 65 warnings.

As the required 60-day waiting periods to file suits are starting to expire, litigation could start any day. Veteran Proposition 65 attorney Clifford A. Chanler, who is behind most of the claims, is promising to aggressively go after the companies and defense attorneys are already preparing for what could be a costly and complicated legal fight. link to source
 

In a series of actions that have highlighted interest in the enforcement of Proposition 65, As You Sow has singularly filed and settled more than 125 Propositions 65 lawsuits within 18-24 months of startup. As You Sow has collected more than $1 million in reimbursements for investigative costs and attorney's fees from manufacturers of spray paints, adhesives, and nail polishes. The organization, said its attorney, Clifford Chanler of the San Francisco firm Chanler & Associates, is focusing on the chemical toluene, which was involved in all of these cases.