Scott Nakama
His register entry carries no email, no fax and no website — all three read Not Available. The firm's rideshare page opens by asserting that rideshare SUV crashes claim thousands of California victims yearly and attributes a specific crash-rate multiplier to the NHTSA, with nothing to click. We do not reprint any of it.
The bar record
We read Scott Nakama in the State Bar of California’s licensee search. California publishes more history than most registers: a bar number, a dated status timeline, and administrative as well as disciplinary actions.
California is the one register that tells you it removes its own history. Above the status table, every record carries this: some administrative suspensions are subject to automatic removal from the attorney profile page pursuant to the State Bar’s policy on removal of administrative actions ... administrative suspensions that meet the criteria in that policy would not be displayed below.
Administrative suspensions are not discipline — they follow from things like unpaid fees or missed continuing education. But the sentence still means what it says. A timeline showing nothing is a timeline showing nothing that the State Bar currently displays, and we are not going to write “never suspended” when the register reserves the right to have taken an entry down. No other register on this site says this about itself.
And it does not check what the lawyer tells it. Where a record carries practice areas, the State Bar prints a warning next to them: it does not verify the accuracy of this content and makes no warranties regarding experience or competence in practice areas. Eleven of the twelve lawyers on our San Francisco page left that block empty altogether, so for most of them the register holds a name, a number, an address and a status — and nothing about what they actually do.
What the record shows
His State Bar record reads Email: Not Available, Website: Not Available and Fax: Not Available. Of the twelve, his is the sparsest — a name, a number, an address, a phone and a status.Verified
The firm’s rideshare page opens by claiming that rideshare SUV accidents in California claim thousands of victims yearly, and attributes a specific percentage crash-rate difference between SUVs and sedans to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. No link, no report title, no year. It goes on to give a table of causes with percentage frequencies, none of them sourced either.Verified
We reprint none of those figures. This is the exact shape of the eighteen fabricated statistics this site had to remove from its own homepage, and the rule that came out of that is the first one we follow.Verified
The page does carry real, checkable material alongside it — California Civil Code §1714, Public Utilities Code §5433, CCP §335.1, and Doe v. Uber Technologies — which makes the unsourced numbers more conspicuous, not less.Verified
What the firm says
He says he has secured substantial jury verdicts and favourable settlements, defeated motions for summary judgment in discrimination and retaliation cases, and defeated an employer’s appeal before the Ninth Circuit.Reported
He says he was second chair in a trial resulting in a stated six-figure jury award and third chair in a trial where the verdict exceeded the final pre-trial offer several times over. We print no figures.Reported
His practice as published spans personal injury litigation, employee rights and employer representation — both sides of employment work alongside injury claims.Reported
Rideshare
What we haven’t checked
No attorney pays to be listed here, and this profile is not an endorsement or a recommendation. We report the public record so you can weigh it yourself. If anything here is inaccurate or out of date, tell us and we’ll correct it. How we work