Attorney Franklin “Frank” D. Azar built Colorado’s best-known law firm through relentless TV commercials promising big payoffs, but behind the catchy “The Strong Arm” moniker lies a trail of lawsuits, client complaints, and employee battles that paint a different picture of the state’s most visible personal injury attorney. While Frank Azar personally has avoided formal sanctions, his firm faced scrutiny when attorney Phillip Amos was suspended in 2021 for getting drunk at work and sexually harassing a subordinate. Recent court battles reveal aggressive litigation tactics against competitors, disputes with former employees over hundreds of thousands in commissions, and mounting client grievances about inadequate representation.
The $1.55 Million Google Ad War
Azar settled for $1.55 million in December 2024 after suing the Mike Slocumb Law Firm for allegedly hijacking his identity online. The Alabama firm paid for Google ads that displayed “Frank Azar” in the title but directed clicks to Slocumb’s website, which Azar blasted as “a scam” against consumers.
The “Strong Arm” battles extend beyond Google. Azar and Texas attorney Brian Loncar jointly devised the “Strong Arm” moniker decades ago. After Loncar’s 2016 death from cocaine overdose, their coexistence agreement fell apart. Azar sued Loncar’s firm for $2 million per violation but abruptly dropped the case without explanation.
Emboldened by his Slocumb victory, Azar launched similar lawsuits in 2025 against local competitors, including prominent Denver injury firm Bachus & Schanker and former associate Dominic Genco. Genco’s lawyer called Azar’s claims “substantially groundless, frivolous, or vexatious,” suggesting these lawsuits are harassment rather than legitimate grievances.
A judge ruled that Azar himself could be sued for abuse of legal process in a separate dispute. This rare judicial finding suggests Azar may be weaponizing litigation against perceived enemies.
The Ivy Ngo Saga: $1.2 Million in Legal Fees
The most dramatic employee battle involved Ivy Ngo, who led Azar’s class action division from 2018 to 2020. After she attempted to recruit colleagues to leave with her, Azar fired her and sued for breach of contract. Ngo countersued for defamation, claiming Azar spread lies to prospective employers that she had stolen trade secrets.
The litigation revealed uncomfortable details. Ngo’s attorneys alleged the firm had “a culture of heavy drinking and drug use” during work hours and that Azar exhibited “erratic behavior.” Judges blocked most of these allegations as irrelevant to the contract dispute.
A jury sided with Azar in December 2022, awarding him just $4,000 in damages. But the real punishment came from fee-shifting provisions in Ngo’s employment contract: she was ordered to pay $1.2 million in legal fees.
Azar didn’t stop there. While appeals were pending, he garnished Ngo’s bank accounts. Then in October 2023, Azar sued Ngo’s husband and parents, claiming they participated in fraudulent asset transfers to shield money from the judgment.
Denver District Court Judge David Goldberg wasn’t buying it. In a March 2024 ruling, the judge determined that Ngo had legitimately borrowed money from her parents for home construction, sold the home to her husband for fair market value ($1.8 million), and used proceeds to pay lawyers and repay her parents—all before the trial even occurred. Goldberg suggested Azar & Associates may have “acted with an ulterior motive” and “improperly used the legal process” when suing Ngo’s family.
The Ngo family alleged Azar’s real goal was intimidation. They filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board accusing Azar of forcing employees to sign illegally restrictive employment contracts.
The Employee Exodus: Millions in Disputed Commissions
Ngo wasn’t alone. A pattern emerged of former attorneys claiming Azar owed them substantial unpaid commissions.
Scott McCrary, former head of mass torts practice, sued for $590,000 in March 2025. McCrary claims he settled nearly all his assigned cases—including 364 defective defibrillator lawsuits and over 100 other device cases—before his termination but received only partial payment.
Joel Fry alleges Azar owes him over $1 million from a 2020 contract promising 22% of fees. After leaving to start his own firm, Fry claims Azar filed baseless RICO racketeering charges that were later dismissed, allowing Fry to countersue for abuse of process.
Kenneth Wood alleged Azar reneged on a partnership promise after Wood brought in cases worth over $10 million to the firm. When Wood left after the broken promise, Azar allegedly retaliated with lawsuits seeking $750,000.
The pattern is clear: attorneys bring in substantial revenue, get terminated or pushed out, then face aggressive litigation when they seek compensation owed.
Settlement Mill Allegations and Client Complaints
Critics accuse high-volume advertisers like Azar of running “plaintiff mills” that maximize profit through quick, suboptimal settlements rather than fighting for full client compensation. While Azar’s attorney called any such characterization “false and defamatory,” the pattern of complaints suggests systemic issues.
The criticism isn’t new. In the landmark Crowe v. Tull case, client Richard Crowe sued under Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, claiming Azar’s ads promised to “obtain full value” but the firm pressured him to settle for “far less.” The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that consumer fraud laws do apply to attorneys’ business practices, allowing the claim to proceed.
Better Business Bureau complaints describe similar patterns: clients feeling abandoned after signing, surprise deductions from settlements, lack of communication, and pressure to accept lowball offers. One client reported paying 33.3% in fees instead of the promised 30%, and being left with $2,500 in unpaid medical bills after the settlement. The firm maintains BBB accreditation but faces recurring grievances about service quality.
Yelp reviews average just 2 stars, with clients describing experiences contradicting the firm’s advertising promises. Reviewers use phrases like “Predatory… Gas lighting, Lying, Thieves.” Others describe a “factory assembly line” approach where clients rarely speak to actual attorneys. Common complaints include minimal attorney contact, assembly-line treatment, and settlements that barely cover medical bills after fees.
Financial Troubles Behind the Billboards
Despite the massive advertising presence, financial records suggest cash flow problems. Azar sued his former accountant three times over alleged tax underpayments totaling $716,000, claiming the CPA gave “grossly erroneous” advice that resulted in IRS penalties. The accountant countered that Azar was well aware of tax obligations and the disputes arose from his own financial decisions.
Tax Court documents reveal Azar is battling the Internal Revenue Service over a 2017 tax bill, with trial scheduled for 2023.
Azar purchased a $1.85 million Cherry Hills home in 2022 while simultaneously battling multiple lawsuits over unpaid obligations to former employees, raising questions about financial priorities.
Where The Players Are Now
Frank Azar continues operating his personal injury firm and remains Colorado’s most visible attorney through ubiquitous TV advertising. He recently celebrated a $250,000 settlement for an injured veteran, emphasizing his commitment to client advocacy.
Ivy Ngo is practicing law in Denver after surviving the years-long legal battle with her former employer. She faces a $1.2 million legal fee judgment that Azar continues pursuing through aggressive collection tactics including garnishment and lawsuits against family members.
Scott McCrary operates his own firm, McCrary Law Firm, while his $590,000 commission dispute with Azar remains unresolved in court.
The Strong Arm trademark continues generating litigation. Azar’s aggressive enforcement of the mark has led to settlements, dropped cases, and ongoing battles with competitors who allege his tactics constitute harassment rather than legitimate intellectual property protection.
Phillip Amos, the attorney who was suspended for workplace misconduct while employed at Azar & Associates, has completed his suspension period. The incident raised questions about firm culture and oversight that were later echoed in Ivy Ngo’s allegations about workplace conditions.
The mounting evidence suggests a disconnect between Azar’s ubiquitous advertising promising to fight for maximum compensation and the reality experienced by many clients and employees. The pattern is clear: aggressive litigation against competitors, disputes with former employees over millions in compensation, client complaints about inadequate representation, and financial battles suggesting cash flow issues despite the firm’s massive advertising presence.
While Azar celebrates victories like recent settlements, the broader picture reveals a legal empire built on volume over value, where marketing dollars outweigh meaningful client advocacy. For Colorado accident victims drawn to the Strong Arm’s promises, the message from former clients and employees is consistent: behind the billboards and catchphrases lies a high-volume operation where individual cases may receive minimal attention and quick settlements prioritize the firm’s bottom line over client recovery.
Leave a Reply