Can a lawyer threaten to file disciplinary charges, against an attorney or a non-lawyer professional, to gain leverage in a civil case?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 220 (adopted September 17, 1991) resolved three related inquiries. Two attorneys asked about threatening to file disciplinary charges against opposing attorneys with Bar Counsel to gain advantage in civil settlements, one in a malicious-prosecution action and one in a fee-collection action. A third asked about threatening to file a complaint with professional associations of realtors and appraisers, seeking suspension or revocation of a real-estate professional's license, to gain advantage in a malpractice action.
The committee explained that Rule 8.4(g) makes it misconduct to "seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter," broadening the former DR 7-105, which reached only criminal charges. A threat to file disciplinary charges against an attorney fell within the rule's plain terms; the only question was whether the charges were threatened "solely" for civil advantage, a factual question the committee could not decide. The committee noted Rule 8.3(a)'s affirmative duty to report serious misconduct: a complaint filed in a good-faith effort to comply with Rule 8.3 is not filed solely for advantage, but a threat to file is unlikely to be a good-faith effort to comply, because the duty under Rule 8.3 is to report, not to threaten to report. The committee found no relevant distinction between a "threat" and a "hint."
The committee concluded that Rule 8.4(g) applies equally to threats against non-attorneys, since the type of disciplinary charge is not limited in the rule, and reading it to reach only attorneys would anomalously permit threatening a party's professional license but not the party's attorney. Because the realtor-and-appraiser complaint could lead to suspension or revocation of a license, it was a disciplinary charge within the rule, with the "solely for advantage" question again left as a factual matter. The committee added that threats made for other purposes could implicate Rule 3.1's bar on frivolous claims or extortion and blackmail statutes.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could a lawyer threaten disciplinary charges against an opposing attorney to push a civil settlement?
A: No, if done solely for advantage. The committee concluded that threatening to file disciplinary charges against an attorney solely to gain advantage in a civil matter violates Rule 8.4(g).
Q: Does the rule also cover threats against non-lawyer professionals?
A: Yes. The committee concluded Rule 8.4(g) applies equally to threats to file disciplinary charges against non-attorneys, such as realtors or appraisers, when made solely to gain civil advantage.
Q: Is reporting another lawyer's misconduct ever proper in this setting?
A: Yes. The committee concluded a good-faith report under Rule 8.3 is not made solely for advantage, but cautioned that a threat to report is not protected by Rule 8.3, because that rule requires reporting, not threatening.
Q: Is there a difference between a "threat" and a "hint"?
A: No. The committee found no relevant distinction; any suggestion of filing a disciplinary charge solely to gain civil advantage falls within Rule 8.4(g).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 8.4(g), which makes it professional misconduct to seek or threaten to seek criminal or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, a broadening of the former Code's DR 7-105 (criminal charges only). The committee read it together with Rule 8.3(a), which requires a lawyer to report another lawyer's misconduct that raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, and noted that threats made for other purposes might implicate Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 8.4(g) / Model Rule 8.4 (threatening criminal or disciplinary charges for civil advantage)
- D.C. RPC 8.3(a) / Model Rule 8.3 (duty to report another lawyer's misconduct)
- D.C. RPC 3.1 / Model Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions)
Other opinions cited:
- Illinois Op. 87-7, Indiana Op. 10 (1985), Maine Op. 100 (1989), Maryland Docket 86-14, Massachusetts Op. 83-2, Michigan Op. CI-695 (1981), and Wisconsin Op. E-89-16: other jurisdictions barring threats of disciplinary charges for civil advantage
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 246: Duty to Report Another Lawyer's Misconduct
- NY State Bar Op. 772: Threatening Charges in a Civil Matter
- IL Bar Op. 86-09: Threatening Referral to a Prosecutor
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-220
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1991 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.