Threat Draws Proposed Sanction

An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended a suspension of one year and until further court order for threats of criminal prosecution and false statements about the willingness of authorities to pursue charges.

The evidence is uncontroverted that Respondent was representing his client, Jacob Goodbred, in a civil matter, and that he threatened to present criminal charges against the Barbees in order to induce them to settle the matter. The April 4, 2022, letter itself clearly and unequivocally states this threat. Respondent’s statements in the letter that Goodbred would make a report to a law enforcement agency regarding the Barbees’ alleged crimes and pursue criminal prosecution against the Barbees unless they settled Goodbred’s claim constitute a threat to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Moreover, in his sworn statement, Respondent acknowledged that the purpose of his letter to the Barbees was to achieve settlement for his client, and that he threatened legal action, including criminal reporting, if the Barbees were unwilling to settle the matter. Thus, Respondent’s own words establish that he violated Rule 8.4(g) by threatening to present criminal charges against the Barbees in order to gain an advantage in a civil matter by achieving a settlement for his client.

Testimony from the State’s Attorney referenced by Respondent

He also was concerned that the letter appeared to be stating false information, in that it stated that Umholtz and Respondent had discussed the case and that Umholtz was interested in prosecuting it, “both of which are completely untrue.” (Tr. 29-30). Umholtz testified that, in his view, Respondent’s asking him if the office handled financial exploitation cases “is not discussing the case,” and that he never told Respondent that he was interested in prosecuting the matter. (Tr. 30-31).

After Umholtz saw Respondent’s letter to the Barbees, he again met with Respondent in his office. The point of the meeting was so that Umholtz could tell Respondent that his statements in the letter were not true. Umholtz testified that he expressed his concerns to Respondent, and Respondent explained how he thought his letter was accurate and truthful. (Tr. 32-33). Umholtz testified that Respondent was “totally dismissive of reality” and “felt very strongly that his letter was accurate,” and therefore that the meeting was “very short, because [Umholtz] really felt like it wasn’t going to be productive to have a discussion.” (Tr. 34)

Mrs. Barbee has worked for Umholtz and testified that the letter made her “scared to death.” (Mike Frisch)