Re: Follow up

Rule 3.4(e) of the NY Rules of Professional Conduct prohi=its a lawyer from threatening to bring criminal charges solely to gain adva=tage in a civil case and in fact making such a threat might constitute exto=tion.

The rule is limited obviously by the "sole=y" language. It is intent that matters and that is difficult t= discern and prove. If for example a lawyer threatens to turn someone=in for tax fraud unless he gets satisfaction in some non tax related case i= is easy.

However, under the disciplinary rules th=t were the predecessor to these and which in this point had similar languag=, there is an interesting formal opinion that says when the lawyer threaten= criminal charges but offers implicitly or expressly to refrain from doing s= if you pay her money, there is a presumption that the rule is violated and=that the threat or filing of criminal charges was not based on an honest be=ief of crime or an intent to seek justice. He seems to have done just=that.

The real danger you face is the filing of rare charges in NY in this environment and with all the bad press especially r=cently. He knows that and he knows there is no statute of limitations=

What is your theory in where he/she got the detai=s (from the FL lawyer?)? How did she come to the FL lawyer originally= Why didn't she do something then?

Are his details accurate in the layout from 2001? Were you in NY alll t=e time then? How about specifically in September 2001?

all fabrications from publicly filed cases. no m=re . he came and made a proposition 500k we s=id statute of limits. and no eveidence he never cam= back and then this lawyer took it on

house=descripitions as you rightly point out are highly inaccurate , mostl= fabrications . new law in new york revives statutes . i= circumstances separate from prostitution . tricky <=div>

Eve= more important would be proof of travel schedule - proof not physically th=re during time period - 9/2001and weekly as alleged.

Only real threat criminally is rape even though b=sed on 100% false facts. SOL as opposed to 5 year SOL and obviously m=st inflammatory along with 14-15 year old age claim. Easy to make a f=lse claim.

I would like to get a sense of your lawyers' plan. I sup=ose one school of thought is to ignore it but I believe the guy has put too=much work into it and sees dollar signs too much to just go away if you ign=re it. Again the only real danger is the criminal charge and the poss=bility of a prosecutor who prefers headlines and trophies to research and i=vestigation.

Another respo=se would be for AD to respond by letting him know in no uncertain terms tha= this is a fully fabricated claim. He can lay out that you have admit=ed to many things when there was any basis in fact to them; but this has no=basis in fact. That this matter was raised years ago by guy in FL and=he was told it is a false claim. Again, I doubt this would have any i=pact in the guy. It is possible he has been duped and he should take t=e ethical implications of what he is doing seriously - not just unethically=threatening or filing criminal complaint on false claim - but pursuing a ca=e he has been told unequivocally is 100% false. You would not want hi= to be able to say down the road he believed it, but gave you chance to res=ond before filing and you declined and so he did his due diligence.

Another view would be to try to pr=empt him by AD reporting the extortion effort to the bar and even to the NY=DA. Not necessarily going to get a sympathetic ear and might turn the= on to something they otherwise would not know about the lawyer is bluffing= But i tend to doubt he is bluffing. It costs him nothing to file the=criminal complaint (especially if he doesn't believe there will eth=cal consequences or even money damages for civil action against him and her=; but who knows. I don't play poker or Russian roulette.

Another course would be to resp=nd and have a lawyer want to hear him out, etc. to give you more time to in=estigate and/or to get him deeper into extortion and professional/ethical v=olations (e.g. he fully commits to you pay him he doesn't file crim=nal charges; you don't and he does). Less risk in reporting h=m then as it would be tough for the DA to take the case knowing the extorti=g lawyer will be a primary witness at any criminal case.