Threat of litigation/fees

[johnd]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

Anyone know of a specific Wisconsin statute or rule forbidding the threat of a lawsuit and related attorney fees?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

Anyone know of a specific Wisconsin statute or rule forbidding the threat of a lawsuit and related attorney fees?

Nope. And not in the 49 other states.

 

[jdmba]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

Anyone know of a specific Wisconsin statute or rule forbidding the threat of a lawsuit and related attorney fees?

This isn't Wisconsin specific, but generally speaking, it depends on whether the threatened litigation is justified. For example, if a demand for money is coupled with a threat of unjustified litigation, it might be considered extortion.

 

[You Are Guilty]

And it might also be considered unconstitutional. (Last I heard, the first amendment was still in effect.)

 

[jdmba]

And it might also be considered unconstitutional. (Last I heard, the first amendment was still in effect.)

A demand for money coupled with a threat of unjustified litigation might be considered unconstitutional?

I'm not following. Care to clarify?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And it might also be considered unconstitutional. (Last I heard, the first amendment was still in effect.)

WHAT a PILE OF CRAP!!!! YOU Explain yourself young man!!!!


(just kidding )

 

[You Are Guilty]

A demand for money coupled with a threat of unjustified litigation might be considered unconstitutional?

I'm not following. Care to clarify?

I'll have to dig up some example cases, but many states have held that a threat to enfore a legal right (i.e. to arrest, or sue) is not a crime (or a tort). In the meantime, define "unjustified". Since only a judge is determining "justification," even is someone says "pay me or face my frivilous suit" doesn't mean it would be unjustified. (Nor does losing a case automatically mean it was unjustified.)

Hell, I can threaten to sue you for libel for your posts on this board. Do you honestly think any PD in the country is going to charge me with extortion for doing so?

 

[jdmba]

I'll have to dig up some example cases, but many states have held that a threat to enfore a legal right (i.e. to arrest, or sue) is not a crime (or a tort). In the meantime, define "unjustified". Since only a judge is determining "justification," even is someone says "pay me or face my frivilous suit" doesn't mean it would be unjustified. (Nor does losing a case automatically mean it was unjustified.)

Hell, I can threaten to sue you for libel for your posts on this board. Do you honestly think any PD in the country is going to charge me with extortion for doing so?

Let's say somebody says: "If you don't pay me $X.XX, I'm going to frivolously and falsely sue you in civil court for molesting my child. I will ultimately lose because it didn't happen, but in the public's eye you'll be guilty and your career will be ruined."

Do you not think that could amount to extortion?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

This isn't Wisconsin specific, but generally speaking, it depends on whether the threatened litigation is justified. For example, if a demand for money is coupled with a threat of unjustified litigation, it might be considered extortion.

The exact question was in regards to the threat of a lawsuit and attorney fees. The answer to the exact question was no, it is not illegal.

We can play games all day with " well, if it's done this way....." but to answer the exact question asked the answer is NO, it is not illegal.

 

[jdmba]

The exact question was in regards to the threat of a lawsuit and attorney fees. The answer to the exact question was no, it is not illegal.

We can play games all day with " well, if it's done this way....." but to answer the exact question asked the answer is NO, it is not illegal.

Oh, I'm sorry "counselor," I must have missed to portion of the OP's post where he explained the circumstances of the threatened suit in enough detail to rule out something similar to my example.

Or maybe the correct answer to the exact question asked is, "it depends."

Hmmmmm...

That's one thing I love about your posts, Belizeebub...you like to make assumptions and play "fact finder" rather than answer legal questions. Of course, that's all that can really be expected of laymen.

 

[tranquility]

Isn't that the joke? The young attorney gives the answer to the question and the wizened veteran says, "It depends." Everything in the forum requires more facts. Most everything demands specific detail to facts and knowledgable development of them. But then, the shop should be closed as no one will get an answer. Many times assumptions have to be made.

By-the-by, I don't know if your scenario rises to the level of the crime of extortion (or blackmail). Even in that outrageous of a statement, at best, the call would be close and many issues would be implicated.

 

[jdmba]

Everything in the forum requires more facts. Most everything demands specific detail to facts and knowledgable development of them. But then, the shop should be closed as no one will get an answer. Many times assumptions have to be made.

I disagree that the "shop" would be closed. Instead of making assumptions and then stating an answer with certainty, why not just tell the truth? The answer depends on various factors, such as "blank," "blank" and "blank." Useful advice can be offered without definitively concluding something and possibly misleading the OP.

As for this case, I generally agree that threatening a lawsuit is not illegal. That "rule of thumb," however, is not written in stone. If a person could sue for abuse of process after the fact, it stands to reason that the mere threat, under the right circumstances, could be punishable as well.

 

[tranquility]

I disagree that the "shop" would be closed. Instead of making assumptions and then stating an answer with certainty, why not just tell the truth? The answer depends on various factors, such as "blank," "blank" and "blank." Useful advice can be offered without definitively concluding something and possibly misleading the OP.

I try to be careful in my responses, but if I try to caveat every answer by all the if then and maybes each answer is the length of a magazine article. Heck, I remember an entire discussion where I even did a little research and finally came to the conclusion that the facts could not be as the OP said as it simply did not make any sense. After going around and around for days trying to get out the facts on the fourm, another poster finally asked or supposed (I don't remember which.) perhaps the poster means beneficiary and not trustee. Then, everything made sense.

For example, in this thread, what are the issues to such a statement being a crime? To write it up you have to give a full discussion on the law. How extortion was related to robbery in it's development. What constitutes a threat? Is this threat have to do with person or property? Was property actually acquired from this future threat? Was the fear the controlling cause of the victim parting with his property? Was the threat written? Was it for money or something else? Is threatening a lawsuit the same as threating to turn someone in for a crime? Is this a treat to disclose some true, but private fact which would subject him to ridicule? Is there a privilege to file a lawsuit? Was there an intent to extort or to gain? (Was the demand fair compensation?) And on and on, depending on the facts. "Without the facts there is no issue." You write the articles if you want, but that doesn't help a person any more than an answer which assumes some of the facts.

If a person could sue for abuse of process after the fact, it stands to reason that the mere threat, under the right circumstances, could be punishable as well.

Clearly you have a tort in your scenario. A crime? I don't know, maybe--if the victim is the beloved virginal daughter of the District Attorney. But then we get to reality of proof. I guess if it were videotaped with no excuse, again, maybe. But, does that maybe have any relevance to the discussion in this thread?

 

[jdmba]

I try to be careful in my responses, but if I try to caveat every answer by all the if then and maybes each answer is the length of a magazine article.

Informing an OP that there is more than one possible outcome depending on his particular circumstances does not require writing a treatise on the subject.

In this particular case, is the OP the victim of extortion? Probably not, but who knows? If he came to your office for help, would you tell him "sorry, but there's nothing you can do about your situation" without ever hearing his story? I doubt it, so why do it here?

I just don't understand the need to play fact finder in here.

 

[jdmba]

Clearly you have a tort in your scenario. A crime? I don't know, maybe--if the victim is the beloved virginal daughter of the District Attorney.

Great...a tort works too. But if it is a tort, then why is Beezlebub writing that the OP has no recourse? That's my point...