Investigative Opinion — Municipal Accountability

When an Insurance Lawyer Prosecutes a Free Press Case

A Look at Keiko Kojima’s Handling of City of Santa Clarita v. Zullo

A Résumé Built for Insurance Disputes, Not Constitutional Ones

According to her own firm’s biography, Keiko J. Kojima, an attorney at Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, built her career on insurance coverage disputes, bad faith liability litigation, and — by her firm’s own description — ERISA and employee benefits work representing insurers in disability and life insurance cases. Her listed representative matters are almost entirely federal ERISA and insurance-coverage rulings: cases about plan benefit denials, accidental death and dismemberment claims, and long-term disability terminations.

Nowhere in that record is there a workplace violence restraining order petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8. Nowhere is there an anti-SLAPP motion under section 425.16. Nowhere is there a First Amendment retaliation case, a Counterman v. Colorado true-threats analysis, or a dispute over a publisher’s newsgathering activity.

And yet Kojima, along with colleague Alicia McMaster, is representing the City of Santa Clarita in exactly that kind of case — a workplace violence restraining order petition against a local publisher and property manager whose underlying conduct, by his own account, consisted of phone calls to city officials about a Proposition 218 rate dispute, a sewer gas hazard, a horse trail safety issue, and alleged financial irregularities in a public infrastructure project. This is not an insurance coverage dispute. It is a case that sits squarely on the fault line between civil petitioning rights, press freedom, and the government’s power to use civil process against its critics — terrain her professional background does not appear to have prepared her for.

That mismatch matters. And in this case, it shows.

The Transcript Problem

At the center of the City’s opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion is a transcript of a May 8, 2026 phone call. According to the Reply brief filed in this matter, the excerpt submitted to the court begins mid-sentence — severed from the surrounding conversation in a way that, the brief argues, strips out the context establishing the call as civic petitioning rather than anything resembling a threat.

California’s Rules of Professional Conduct are not vague on this point. Rule 3.3 requires candor toward the tribunal; Rule 4.1 requires truthfulness in statements to others. A selectively excerpted transcript, submitted to a court as evidence of dangerous conduct, without the context that would change its apparent meaning, is not a neutral evidentiary choice. It is, at minimum, a serious question about whether the presentation of evidence in this case was designed to inform the court — or to produce a particular outcome regardless of what the full record shows.

A Missed Call That Was Pleaded as Something It Wasn’t

The City’s case also leans on Exhibit 4 — a softphone screenshot purporting to document contact from the respondent. Examined closely, the exhibit shows a missed call from a number that is not the respondent’s own phone number, on a date that was never pleaded in the underlying petition, under a “Missed” call tab, with a downward-left arrow indicating the call never connected in the first place.

A call that never connected, from a number that isn’t the respondent’s, on a date not alleged in the petition, is not evidence of threatening conduct. It is, at best, imprecise lawyering. At worst, it’s an attempt to manufacture the appearance of contact where none of the pleaded facts support it.

Law as a Tool for Outcomes, Not Truth

Review of Keiko Kojima

There is a difference between advocating zealously for a client and using the machinery of civil process — a restraining order petition, backed by the coercive power of a city government — to achieve an outcome regardless of whether the underlying facts support it. The former is the ordinary, legitimate work of a litigator. The latter is what happens when a lawyer treats the courtroom as a venue for winning rather than a venue for truth-finding.

Based on the record in this case — the truncated transcript, the mismatched exhibit, the reliance on a restraining order petition against a publisher whose conduct consisted of calls to government officials about matters of public concern — it is fair to ask which of those two things has been happening in City of Santa Clarita v. Zullo.

Government attorneys wield significant power when they act on behalf of a municipality against an individual critic. That power comes with a corresponding obligation: to present the court with a complete and accurate record, not the most convenient one. The anti-SLAPP motion pending in this case will test whether that obligation was met. Our investigative team has attempted to reach out to the abusers at Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP but so far we only have reached voicemails no answering service or secretary, this means most likely working from home and not an office with a receptionist or they just suck and never answer either way find another firm is our strong opinion! Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP also has team members that were told on recorded voicemail (which we to recorded) that you are abusing and harassing the elderly by repeatedly sending and/or serving documents to the elderly whom have nothing to do with their case. They were told that the person they are looking for lives in another county and to figure it out. When you have knowledge forthright since those recordings left to several of the people involved and the case rebuttals all have a business PO box you are a little slow and stupid. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP APPEARS TO BE GREAT AT ABUSING THE ELDERLY’S PEACE OR JUST TOO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER.

Personally our opinion save your money and hire an attorney who’s specialty is the issue at hand.

OUR OPINION IS IF YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY IN AN ATTEMPT
TO HARM OTHERS OR YOUR OWN POCKETS?

CONTACT THE MORON BELOW FOR HER OUT OF SCOPE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE US CONSTITUTION AND YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS DUE TO HER INCOMPETENCE

Keiko J. Kojima
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street
40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2942

email Keiko kkojima@bwslaw.com
D: +1 213.236.2842
T: +1 213.236.0600

Santa Clarita Is Using Your Tax Dollars to Silence a Reporter

City of Santa Clarita Uses Public Funds to Sue Its Own Local Journalist

 

Philip Zullo is a journalistic investigative reporter and publisher of Good Shepherd Media who was attacked by the City of Santa Clarita and founder of Urban Group Capital a separate real-estate management and development firm. He is representing himself pro per in Case No.  This piece reflects his ongoing coverage of Santa Clarita municipal government accountability.