Weaponizing the Courts: How Disgruntled Franchisees and Their Attorneys Are Exploiting the Legal System
The legal playbook is meant to ensure fairness and integrity in our justice system. But what happens when attorneys and former business partners use that playbook not to seek justice—but to shake down businesses for money and publicity?
That’s exactly what’s unfolding in a shocking federal case involving Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., and a coordinated campaign led by former franchisees and the law firm Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. The case, G Six Consulting LLC v. Stephen Mullett, has revealed how the legal system is being twisted into a tool for coercion, defamation, and financial gain.
The Allegations: A Legal Shakedown in Disguise
Stephen Mullett, a former executive at Dickey’s, recently filed a motion to disqualify Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. from representing G Six Consulting LLC. His motion alleges that Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. not only broke the rules—it trampled on them. According to Mullett, Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. directed one of its clients, disgruntled ex-franchisee Christopher Bruno, to contact him directly despite knowing he was represented by legal counsel.
What followed was an attempt to pressure Mullett into “working with” Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. and testifying favorably in parallel arbitration cases. The pressure came with veiled threats: “This is not going to go away,” Bruno warned. “I know you’re in a lot of hot water yourself.”
An Ethical Minefield
These tactics are more than inappropriate—they’re unethical and potentially unlawful. Legal rules explicitly prohibit attorneys from contacting a represented party through backdoor methods. And when lawyers inject themselves into the case as fact witnesses—especially while using the media to make unproven claims—they undermine the entire premise of impartial justice.
This isn’t the first time Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. has appeared in the headlines. From claiming that “80% of Dickey’s locations are shutting down” to suggesting hundreds of franchisees have been “wiped out,” the firm’s quotes have become fixtures in negative media narratives—many of which lack any credible foundation. These aren’t just PR statements; they’re part of a broader strategy to discredit, destabilize, and extract.
The Bigger Picture: Racketeering Disguised as Litigation
According to Mullett’s filing, Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. ’s true objective isn’t justice—it’s bankruptcy. The firm is accused of coordinating a multi-pronged attack on Dickey’s that includes:
- Funding and coaching multiple lawsuits,
- Spreading disinformation through sympathetic media,
- Encouraging franchisees to breach their contracts and disrupt operations,
- And even organizing online communities to orchestrate litigation tactics.
This isn’t advocacy—it’s racketeering cloaked in legal robes.
Why This Matters
Dickey’s and its leadership are standing firm against these unethical tactics. The company has long operated with transparency, offering a proven franchise model and support network. When franchisees go off-script and fail to follow the system, they often fail—and instead of owning that failure, they look for someone to blame.
The abuse of the legal system not only harms businesses like Dickey’s, but also threatens the very foundation of our judiciary. The courts are not a playground for dishonest actors to rewrite reality and weaponize lawsuits for profit.
What Comes Next
As the court considers whether to disqualify Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A. from the case, the spotlight is now on the integrity of the legal process. Will the system allow manipulation by attorneys who seek fame and fortune at the expense of facts? Or will it hold the line and restore ethical boundaries?
One thing is clear: this case is bigger than one lawsuit. It’s about protecting what justice should be—honest, impartial, and immune from exploitation.
Click here to read the full story.