道德意见220
威胁要提出纪律指控
威胁要提出纪律指控, either against an attorney with 酒吧 Counsel or against a non-attorney with a relevant professional board, for the sole purpose of gaining advantage in a civil matter are a violation of the 职业行为准则.
适用的规则
- 规则8.4 (g)(行为)
调查
The Committee has before it three related inquiries. 两名执业靠谱的滚球平台询问，为了在民事和解谈判中获得优势，威胁要对靠谱的滚球平台提起纪律指控是否符合道德规范. 第三个问题是，为了同样的目的，威胁要向某些房地产经纪人和评估师专业协会提出申诉是否恰当.
第一个询问者是一个靠谱的滚球平台，他的客户希望对另一个靠谱的滚球平台和他的客户提起恶意起诉，这是由于另一个靠谱的滚球平台和他的客户在先前的诉讼中的行为而引起的. 询问者问他会威胁到什么程度, 或者暗示, 对对方靠谱的滚球平台提出纪律投诉，以迫使对方就恶意起诉索赔达成和解.
第二项调查是在一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所的继任靠谱的滚球平台对该靠谱的滚球平台事务所的前客户提起的托收诉讼中产生的. 在和解谈判期间, 被告的靠谱的滚球平台告知询问者，他的委托人已要求他准备一份诉状，提交给大靠谱的滚球平台. 询问者问，在和解谈判过程中提到提出纪律指控是否不道德.
The third inquirer is an attorney representing a real estate professional in a malpractice action. 在和解谈判过程中, 对方靠谱的滚球平台表示，他的客户已要求他考虑向相关的房地产经纪人和评估师协会提出申诉，以寻求暂停或撤销询问靠谱的滚球平台的客户的执照. The inquirer asks whether this constitutes a violation of the disciplinary rules.
讨论
《靠谱的足球滚球平台》中的有关纪律要求与《靠谱的滚球平台》中的规定有所不同. 规则8.4(g) provides that, "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (g)寻求或威胁寻求刑事指控或纪律指控，仅仅是为了在民事事项中获取利益."早期的禁令, 发现于DR 7-105, was limited to the filing of or threat to file criminal charges. Neither the history nor the published comments to 规则8.4 address the reasons for modifying the rule to include disciplinary charges. Nor do they define or otherwise explain the meaning of the term "disciplinary charges" as it is used in the Rule.1
- Filing or Threatening to File a Disciplinary Charge 再一次。st an Attorney
The prohibition against filing disciplinary charges encompasses, 从表面上看, the threat to file disciplinary charges against attorneys as set forth in two of the inquiries.2 第8条唯一的问题.4(g) is whether the charges were threatened or filed "仅仅在民事案件中获得利益.(加重语气).3
要确定所讨论的纪律指控是为了什么目的或什么目的而受到威胁，这是一个事实问题，本委员会没有能力作出决定. 但是，我们确实注意到规则8.第3(a)条规定，当靠谱的滚球平台“知道另一名靠谱的滚球平台违反了职业行为规则，并对该靠谱的滚球平台的诚实提出实质性质疑”时，靠谱的滚球平台有告知有关专业当局的肯定义务, 诚信, 或者在其他方面适合做靠谱的滚球平台."4 对规则8的评论.3, at ¶ [3], 解释“实质性”一词的使用是指“可能的罪行的严重性”，而不是靠谱的滚球平台所知道的证据的数量." The comments also state that the report should be made to the Office of 酒吧 Counsel. Id.
如果投诉或报告是善意地努力遵守规则8的规定而提交给大靠谱的滚球平台.3 it cannot be said to be filed 仅仅 for the purpose of gaining advantage in a civil matter.5 然而, 威胁提出纪律申诉不太可能被视为遵守规则8的善意努力.3 since the obligation under that Rule is to report—and not to threaten to report—the relevant information.6 As a result, a threat to file a disciplinary charge is not protected under 规则8.3.
纪律指控威胁或提出的目的，而不是在民事事项中获得利益可能涉及其他规则. 这些主要包括规则3.1 which prohibits a lawyer from bringing frivolous claims. 除了, 威胁提出纪律指控可能构成违反有关敲诈勒索和敲诈勒索法规的行为, a concern expressed by the Jordan Committee as discussed above. 再一次。, 正在审议的调查中是否提出了违反本《靠谱的足球滚球平台》的行为，这一问题涉及法律和事实方面的确定，超出了我们的范围，对此我们不发表意见.
- 威胁要提出纪律指控 再一次。st Persons Other Than Attorneys
规则8.4(g), 用它朴素的语言, renders unethical any threat to file disciplinary charges 仅仅 in order to gain advantage in a civil matter. The type of disciplinary charge is not limited either in the Rule or in any published explanatory material. 事实上, 将该规则的禁令解释为扩大到对靠谱的滚球平台而不是对非靠谱的滚球平台提出指控，将会产生反常的结果，即允许靠谱的滚球平台仅为了在民事案件中获得利益而对对方提出或威胁提出纪律指控，而不允许出于同样的原因对其靠谱的滚球平台提出纪律指控. 本委员会拒绝赞同这一结果. The rule applies equally to complaints threatened or filed against attorneys and non-attorneys.
因为在调查中提到的关于房地产专业人员的投诉可能导致暂停或撤销许可证, it is a disciplinary charge within the meaning of the rule. 再一次。, 提出申诉是否仅仅是为了在民事案件中获得利益，这是一个事实问题，本委员会没有能力作出决定.
结论
总之, 委员会认为，威胁对靠谱的滚球平台或非靠谱的滚球平台提出纪律指控，仅仅是为了在民事案件中获得利益，违反了规则8.《靠谱的足球滚球平台》第4(g)条.
Inquiries: 85-9-34: 90-2-8; 90-5-24
通过:1991年9月17日
1. 唯一公开的解释是, which does not address why the words "disciplinary charges" were added to the prohibition, is contained in the statement which the Jordan Committee submitted to the Court of Appeals:
The Committee also added a new paragraph (g), which is substantially similar to DR 7-105. (g)款所处理的问题没有在拟议规则的任何其他条款中具体处理. The Committee felt that the conduct prohibited by paragraph (g), 这就等同于普通法上的勒索, 足够严肃, 而且它的发生也足够频繁, that a rule clearly forbidding that conduct was needed.
2. 禁止以在民事案件中获取利益为唯一目的而威胁或实际对靠谱的滚球平台提出纪律指控，至少符合其他七个司法管辖区的决定. 看到 Illinois State 酒吧 Association Committee on Professional Responsibility, 看来87 - 7, 1/29/88; Indiana State 酒吧 Association 法律道德 Committee, Opinion 10 of 1985; the Professional Ethics Commission of the 董事会 of Overseers of the 酒吧, 缅因州, Opinion 100 (10/4/89); Maryland State 酒吧 Association Committee on Ethics, Docket 86-14; Massachusetts 酒吧 Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 83-2; Michigan State 酒吧 Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, 意见CI-695 (10/18/81); Wisconsin State 酒吧 Committee on Professional Ethics, 意见E-89-16 (9/8/89).
3. Insofar as the first inquirer seeks to differentiate between threats and "hints" of threats, 我们没有发现相关的区别. 任何仅仅为了在民事诉讼中获得优势而提出纪律指控的建议，都属于该规则的范围.
4. The only exception to this requirement is where the information is confidential within the meaning of Rule 1.6. Confidentiality concerns do not appear to be implicated in any of the inquiries under consideration here.
5. 密歇根州靠谱的滚球平台协会专业和司法道德委员会决定，面对类似的报告要求, the suggestion of not reporting violations in return for favorable settlement is improper. 意见CI-695 (10/18/81).
6. 规则8.3 speaks in terms of "informing" the appropriate professional authority. Neither the Rule nor comments explain what precisely is meant by this term. 尽管如此, filing a disciplinary charge is clearly a method of informing the authority and this falls within its plain me
