DON’T FALL FOR THAT SHOPLIFTER LAWYER’S SCAM

I am convinced that there isn’t a lawyer in Canada and the United States who isn’t aware that shoplifters do not have to pay them money for shoplifting damages. And despite that, there are still shysters around who make those demands knowing that if the matter goes to court, the shysters will lose their claims.

In March 2008, I published in my blog an article titled IGNORE THE SHOPLIFTING SCAM. As many as 9,131 shoplifters read that article and since the shysters were asking for $500 from each of the shoplifters, I save shoplifters collectively as much as slightly more than fifty-four million dollars by not paying the shysters.  

A British Columbia, Canada lawyer who called an Ontario counterpart a “sleazy operator” and accused him of being involved in a scam for sending demand letters to the parents of alleged shoplifters has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Law Society of British Columbia.

Gerry Laarakker, who runs his own law firm in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley, admitted to writing a fax to Toronto lawyer, Patrick Martin as well as an Internet posting about him that the law society alleged contained “discourteous and personal remarks” after a client received a $500 demand letter. Martin had been acting on behalf of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Shame on that firm for permitting that that shyster threaten the Hudson’s Bay shoplifters.

Martin’s letter warned Laarakker’s client she could face an even bigger claim for damages if she didn’t pay the settlement amount.

At the same time, Martinsaid he  had instructions to file a civil claim against her for the actual recovery costs incurred by the retailer due to the alleged shoplifting incident involving her teenage daughter. Martin’s letter warned Laarakker’s client she could face an even bigger claim for damages if she didn’t pay the settlement amount.

First of all, suing the mother for the actions of her daughter is a losing ploy. In Ontario, the law states that the parents can only be held civilly liable for crimes committed by their children if they don’t take steps to control their children. How can a parent control a teenager if the parent isn’t aware of what the child is doing  out of sight of the parent?  This shyster knows this unless he is also stupid.  Most of the complaints listed in that 2006 article were about Patrick Martin.

At the same time, Martin had instructions to file a civil claim against her for the actual recovery costs incurred by the retailer due to the alleged shoplifting incident involving her teenage daughter.

The letter explained that recovery costs are those related to the detection, apprehension, recovery of goods, and damages associated with shoplifting. It also claims that future incidents decline when retailers pursue offenders. That claim by Martin is false since the security personal are already paid by the Hudsons’ Bay for as employees.

Laarakker argued before the B.C. law society hearing panel that his comments were justified on the basis that he was dealing with what he called a “rogue lawyer.”

After speaking with the client, (the mother of the teenage shoplifter) Laarakker sent a fax to Martin advising him that the woman wouldn’t be paying the settlement amount. In his letter he said,  “Suffice it to say that I have instructed her not to pay a penny and to put your insulting and frankly stupid letter to the only use for which it might be suitable, (used as toilet paper) however uncomfortably,” Laarakker wrote, adding that he believed a civil judgment against his client was unlikely. He added, “I have notified the local paper of this scam. Save the postage in the future and become a real lawyer instead! You must have harboured dreams of being a good lawyer at one point.”  Obviously those dreams didn’t materialize.

Two days earlier, Laarakker had also commented on a posting on the Canadian Money Advisor blog, where one user had noted a similar letter from Martin. Laarakker identified himself as a lawyer in his comment and said he doubted an action would ever be brought.

This guy is the kind of lawyer that gives lawyers a bad name,” Laarakker wrote. “He is relying on intimidation and blackmail to get the lousy $500. Don’t pay him. I hate these sleazy operators.”

Both the fax and the Internet posting came to the law society’s attention after Martin complained about Laarakker’s behaviour.

Laarakker not backing down from his fight against the practice of targeting alleged shoplifters and their parents. He says he has heard from many people across the country who have received similar letters from Martin and other lawyers on behalf of a range of retailers.

Laarakker “I think the particular pursuit in which he is engaging is a horrible one. He’s intimidating average, normal people whose child may or may not have made a terrible mistake. We’re already perceived as money-grabbing, and something like this paints all of us lawyers with a very bad brush.”

He also said, “I’ve been a lawyer for many years and I’ve never heard of this even going to Small Claims Court.  (Actually one case was heard in court and the case involving the plaintiff  lawyer  was dismissed) I feel the public is being unduly intimidated. I feel perhaps my friends in Ontario are wrapping themselves in their legal robes and taking advantage of the naive and the embarrassed.”

Laarakker says the demand letter struck a nerve with him because of a family member who once dealt with an eating disorder. Some studies have reported higher-than-average rates of shoplifting among those with eating disorders.

“It cut pretty close to the bone,” Laarakker says. “If anyone tried to criminalize her or pull this kind of trick on them, I don’t think I would have resorted just to a letter. In that kind of case, it targets a child who already has problems.”

The Bay, however, says it stands behind the practice of seeking recovery for shoplifting incidents.

The Bay said,  “We are only one of many retailers in Canada who for the past 18 years use the civil recovery process in an effort to discourage shoplifting and offset some of the high security costs we incur as a result of these people who choose to steal from us,” the company’s legal department said in a statement last week. Patrick Martin is only one of many lawyers we have used over the years to assist us in our efforts to try and keep these thieves from repeating their crimes in our stores. “

There was a school teacher who was  caught shoplifting $85 worth of merchandise at a Target Store. A person said in her complaint, , “Thy took my license and info, and told me  to  sign a paper which stated the damages and I was then let go. They told me it was my lucky day and that I would receive a restitution letter in the mail. What are the chances of them filing future criminal complaints? I am a teacher and fear this will affect me. Should I call the store to check the status of my incident? What about contacting the local court?” There will be nothing listed in the court.

I say the following to those who asked me similar questions.

“You don't owe them anything unless they sue you and win (even if you signed the paper). They won't pursue against you because it would cost them more to sue you than they can actually recover. These creeps send them out to shoplifters hoping that they don't know any better and simply send the lawyers the money these lawyers demand.

I always advise those who contact me to ignore these letters. It is a scam. Years ago, I got a nasty letter from a lawyer demanding money from me that I didn’t owe with respect to another matter. My response was to send him a letter but before I placed the letter into the envelope, I wiped my ass with it first. Needless to say, he didn’t respond. My stinky response must have deterred him from communicating with me any further.