ISBA January 1, 1987

Can a lawyer threaten to file a disciplinary complaint against an opposing party who is a lawyer in order to coerce a favorable settlement of a civil case?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that a lawyer should not threaten disciplinary action against a party who is a lawyer to gain an advantage in a civil matter; doing so subverts both the disciplinary system and the civil process.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1987
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer filed a civil damages action against a former client. The former client's new lawyer threatened to file a complaint with the disciplinary commission over the prior representation unless the civil action settled favorably to the former client. The committee was asked whether it is proper to coerce a settlement by threatening disciplinary action against a party who is a lawyer.

The committee began with former Rule 7-105, which expressly barred threatening to present criminal charges to gain an advantage in a civil matter, and with the rationale stated in Ethical Consideration 7-21: using the criminal process to coerce settlement of private civil claims subverts that process and deters the target from asserting legal rights. The committee concluded that the same reasoning extends to threats of disciplinary action. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission exists to license and discipline lawyers, not to settle private disputes, so using a disciplinary threat to influence civil litigation would subvert that system and deter the target lawyer from asserting rights in the civil action.

The committee added that such a threat would also violate former Rule 7-102(a)(1), which barred taking action on behalf of a client when it is obvious the action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another. At the same time, it noted that former Rule 1-103 may require a lawyer with unprivileged knowledge of certain ethical violations to report that knowledge to the appropriate authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1987, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in July 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rule (Rule 8.4(g)), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is it proper to threaten a disciplinary complaint to push an opposing lawyer toward settlement?

A: The opinion concluded no; threatening disciplinary action to gain an advantage in a civil matter subverts both the disciplinary system and the civil adjudicative process.

Q: Former Rule 7-105 only mentioned criminal charges. Why does it reach disciplinary threats?

A: The committee reasoned that the same rationale stated in Ethical Consideration 7-21 (using a protective public process to coerce private settlements is a subversion of that process) applies equally to threats of disciplinary action.

Q: Does any other rule come into play?

A: Yes. The committee found such a threat would also violate former Rule 7-102(a)(1)'s bar on action that serves merely to harass or maliciously injure, and it noted that former Rule 1-103 may separately require reporting known ethical violations to the proper authority.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rules 7-105 (threatening criminal charges for civil advantage), 7-102(a)(1) (action to harass or injure), and 1-103 (reporting misconduct), together with Ethical Consideration 7-21. The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g), within ABA Model Rule 8.4 on misconduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Illinois Code Rule 7-105 (threatening criminal charges for civil advantage, applied by analogy)
  • Illinois Code Rule 7-102(a)(1) (action serving merely to harass or injure)
  • Illinois Code Rule 1-103 (reporting misconduct)
  • Ethical Consideration 7-21
  • Illinois RPC 8.4(g) (2010 equivalent per the Board's affirmation)
  • MR 8.4 (misconduct)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.