Litigation as Intimidation

[pauljcpa]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Is the threat of litigation without disclosing a basis or tort theory a legal ethical problem?
My antagonist is using my intellectual property adverse to my cease and desist demand. When I informed his daughter attorney I had a buyer for the property, she threatened litigation but would not disclose any basis or legal theory for the threat. It appears she is simply using the threat of a lawsuit (on the assumption I don't have the resources to hire defense) as an intimidation tactic. Can she ethically do that?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[DAD10]

Intentional/Negligent/Strict Liability

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Is the threat of litigation without disclosing a basis or tort theory a legal ethical problem?

Not without civil action.

My antagonist is using my intellectual property adverse to my cease and desist demand. When I informed his daughter attorney I had a buyer for the property, she threatened litigation but would not disclose any basis or legal theory for the threat. It appears she is simply using the threat of a lawsuit (on the assumption I don't have the resources to hire defense) as an intimidation tactic. Can she ethically do that?

She has-and apparently it worked.

No libel/slander noted in the threat of a lawsuit-based on your post.

 

[cyjeff]

didn't your cease and desist letter contain a nebulous claim of "any and all legal remedies available" that would be brought to bear?

Wasn't THAT a threat of legal action?

 

[tranquility]

You cannot threaten litigation unless you intend to follow up if your demands are not met. You are not required to make out a complaint in your threatening letter or provide the basis for the complaint.

To avoid this problem of not making an explicit threat I don't intend to follow up with, I often write "I will explore my legal remedies" in letters. That way it's not extortion if I don't follow up.

If an attorney threatens to sue unless you do something, rest assured, they intend to sue unless you do something.

 

[BOR]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Is the threat of litigation without disclosing a basis or tort theory a legal ethical problem?
My antagonist is using my intellectual property adverse to my cease and desist demand. When I informed his daughter attorney I had a buyer for the property, she threatened litigation but would not disclose any basis or legal theory for the threat. It appears she is simply using the threat of a lawsuit (on the assumption I don't have the resources to hire defense) as an intimidation tactic. Can she ethically do that?

You need to read the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys for your state. I do know it is UNethical to file a defacto frivilous lawsuit. It depends on the nature and times the threat is made, etc., to determine if it rises to a breach of the rules.

IF, say a suit is filed merely to intimidate, such as an example, a SLAPP suit, you can countersue for Abuse of Process.

SLAPP stands for; Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Big companies who wanted to shut up those who spoke out against them would sue just to harass and cost them money.

Let's face it, if a BIG corporation threatned to sue you if you did not shut up, even knowing you are right, it may intimidate that person to indeed shutup.

 

[pauljcpa]

Intimidation

Thank you very much for your responses. It helps frame the issues.