Could AMI's Deputy General Counsel Face Extortion Charges? Probably Not but NY Ethics Violations Look Likely
David A. Lewis, a New York-based legal ethics attorney and a former chair of the New York City Bar Association's Professional Responsibility Committee, said Fine potentially violated a number of rules that could lead to various levels of discipline.
February 11, 2019 at 10:04 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
American Media Inc.'s National Enquirer became a Twitter trend after Amazon chief executive officer accused the company of attempted extortion—but its deputy general counsel could face more serious consequences than jokes on social media, including legal action or bar discipline.
Lawyers with extortion law experience were split on whether or not AMI's deputy general counsel Jon Fine, who joined the New York-based company in November and allegedly wrote two of the emails published by Bezos, could face charges. In the alleged emails he sent to the Amazon CEO, Fine outlines the terms for an agreement between AMI and Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post.
Bezos' side of the deal would require him to drop an investigation of AMI's political motivations and its obtainment of personal texts between the Amazon CEO and his alleged girlfriend Lauren Sanchez. In exchange, Fine said AMI's part of the agreement would hold it from publishing personal photos allegedly sent between Bezos and Sanchez.
Multiple phone calls and emails to Fine for comment have not been immediately returned.
Julie Rendelman, a New York City criminal defense lawyer, said Fine could face criminal charges, citing New York law PEN § 135.60, which states an individual is guilty of coercion in the second degree if he or she “compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from” by threatening to “expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule.”
“That seems to me, if we were talking about a New York State case, the charge that would fit that. Because obviously the argument would be that Bezos has a right to conduct or attempt to conduct an investigation into why [AMI] is doing what they're doing,” Rendelman said. “And their response is, they're trying to tell him to stop doing it, and in exchange, if he does not, they're going to publicize the nude photos.”
She said 18 USC Ch. 41 could apply on a federal level if reputation is considered a “thing of value,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled it was in its 2012 United States v. Petrovic decision.
Daniel Szalkiewicz, the founding partner of Daniel Szalkiewicz & Associates and another New York-based attorney familiar with extortion law, said he doesn't think Fine's alleged emails legally constitute extortion, because Fine never said, outright, that AMI would publish Bezos' photos if the CEO didn't agree to drop investigations into the company, at least in the emails Bezos publicly released.
“I really don't see an implicit threat in here. I think the previous [email sent by AMI's chief content officer] has more of an implicit threat, clearly saying that, not only do we have these photographs, but we're going to describe them, as that will obviously cause a lot of embarrassment towards you,” Szalkiewicz said of Fine's alleged email.
David A. Lewis, a New York-based legal ethics attorney and a former chair of the New York City Bar Association's Professional Responsibility Committee, said Fine potentially violated a number of rules that could lead to various levels of discipline, if the allegations against him are true. He added Fine's status as an in-house lawyer assisting his client organization with its goals doesn't mean he's exempt from the state's ethics rules.
Lewis cited the New York Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 1.2, which states that lawyers must resign if their “representation would assist client conduct that is illegal or fraudulent.” If AMI is found to have broken any laws in their alleged interactions with Bezos, Fine could be found to have violated this rule, among others, Lewis said. He added it's likely a committee deciding if and how to discipline Fine will factor in any previous violations, the number of violations in his latest behavior and his intent.
“To the extent that a lawyer in good faith inadvertently violates a rule of professional conduct, in my experience, the Attorney Grievance Committee will be extremely reasonable into taking that into consideration,” Lewis said. “However, if the lawyer is not acting in good faith, and has violated various rules of professional conduct, they should expect that the sanctions that the Attorney Grievance Committee will seek [are] going to be severe.”
Lewis said disciplinary recourse ranges from a private censure to disbarment.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250