Court Affirms Dismissal of Disbarred Work Comp Attorney's Distress Claim

Thursday, October 19, 2017 | 1

California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal refused to reinstate a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by an attorney disbarred earlier this year for not abiding the terms of his probation for willfully disobeying three orders issued by workers’ compensation judges.

Although not mentioned in the appellate court's decision, Martin Reiner was not supposed to be practicing law when the actions giving rise to his emotional distress complaint occurred.

Reiner was a workers’ compensation defense attorney in Beverly Hills until his license to practice law was revoked in April for not submitting to the State Bar of California proof that he served on clients notice that he was disciplined for ignoring orders from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board imploring him to refrain from filing frivolous complaints.

The WCAB sanctioned Reiner three times between 2007 and 2010. The first order fined him $2,500 for sending a letter to a panel of judges that ruled against him, calling the jurists “imbeciles.” The second penalty, also for $2,500, was issued after he accused a workers’ compensation judge of being corrupt, incompetent and a liar.

The final sanction for $2,500 plus $1,000 in attorney fees was handed down for bad faith tactics for removing an attorney’s name from the minutes of a court proceeding, and threatening the attorney to not attend another hearing.

The State Bar in 2014 suspended Reiner’s license for two years and prohibited him from practicing law during the first six months of the suspension. The state Supreme Court in September 2014 declined Reiner’s petition to review the punishment handed down by the board.

As part of his discipline, Reiner was required to notify clients and attorneys in all his pending cases about the suspension that took effect Oct. 10, 2014. And he was required to file an affidavit with the bar stating that he had done so by Nov. 10, 2014.

Rather than file the affidavit, Reiner on Dec. 1, 2014, sent an email to the State Bar, saying that the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent suspension order were invalid and unconstitutional.

The order disbarring Reiner says a hearing officer determined Reiner's refusal to file the affidavit was willful and that he was indifferent to the requirements he ignored.

“As noted, we agree, but find additional, more significant aggravation based on his lack of insight and remorse,” the State Bar’s Review Department said in the order to disbar Reiner. “Reiner has shown no repentance and has yet to file his compliance affidavit or indicate any intention of doing so. Instead, he makes disparaging remarks about everyone involved in the disciplinary cases.”

Reiner reportedly accused the hearing judge of “intellectually dishonesty” and characterized the actions against him as “a professional lynching as a favor for the chairperson of the WCAB.”

In short, the Bar said Reiner has gone “beyond tenacity to truculence.”

The Bar said Reiner had no justifiable reason to ignore the terms of his discipline. And when an attorney evidences indifference to the disciplinary system designed to protect the public, “we have not hesitated to recommend disbarment, and we do so here.”

Coincidentally, Reiner’s failed claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress stems from a case he was handling when he was supposed to be suspended.

Reiner in November 2014 filed a complaint for emotional distress after receiving an email from opposing counsel in a discrimination case threatening to refer him to the bar for discipline. The Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2015 dismissed the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, a ruling the 2nd DCA affirmed on Tuesday.

Reiner in March 2014 represented two employees accusing Greyhound Lines Inc. of race discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and failure to accommodate stress and anxiety disabilities resulting from the alleged harassment. The plaintiffs said two of their subordinates at Greyhound on an almost daily basis called them “fucking Mexicans” and openly complained that “these fucking Mexicans are taking our jobs.”

The plaintiffs said Greyhound did not discipline the workers who engaged in the alleged campaign of harassment. And they say they were illegally fired in retaliation for complaining about the harassment.

In September 2014, Reiner sent a series of emails to Ian Wade and Tricia Martinez, who were representing Greyhound in the case. Reiner said in the emails that he represented another person who also had claims against Greyhound, and who had facts that could be used in the current case. He suggested Greyhound could quietly resolve the situation by agreeing to pay $10,000 to his clients, plus $7,500 in attorney fees, according to an unpublished decision the 2nd DCA handed down Tuesday.

A follow-up email sent later that month increased the demand to $15,000 for his clients plus $10,000 in attorney fees.

“You can cooperate and save Greyhound significantly, or you can be uncooperative and cause Greyhound significant harm,” the email reportedly said.

Martinez sent an email to Wade asking for information about the “proper authorities” with whom she should file a complaint against Reiner. The email was also sent to Reiner, and the court’s decision says it’s not clear whether this was a mistake.

Reiner responded with an email saying that threatening to report someone to the State Bar constitutes extortion under California law.

Martinez said in a reply, “I have been trying desperately to refrain from reporting you to every court, bar association and any other entity that has responsibility over attorneys in California.” She closed by saying it is people like Reiner “who give our profession a bad reputation.”

In November 2014, Reiner filed a complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress over the threat to report him to the State Bar.

Greyhound, Wade and Martinez asked the trial court in Los Angeles to dismiss the complaint under the California law prohibiting strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as anti-SLAPP.

The court said it appeared Reiner was trying to solicit “hush” money and that there was no extortion because Martinez was within her rights to send the emails to Reiner, given his “odd behavior.” The court dismissed the complaint and awarded Greyhound, Wade and Martinez attorney fees in the amount of $17,610.

Reiner filed a motion to vacate the order, which was taken off calendar when he named the judge who presided over the case as an additional defendant.

Instead, the case went to the 2nd DCA, which ruled that the emails from Martinez were protected free speech. While Reiner argued that the emails were an attempt to strong-arm him into dropping the complaint under threat of reporting him to the bar, the court did not agree.

“In fact, the evidence — including a plain reading of the emails — suggested that the emails were sent in response to Reiner’s demands for ‘hush money,’” the court said. “Although it is theoretically possible that Martinez sent the emails with the intent to induce Reiner to drop his clients' claims, respondents did not concede this, and the evidence did not conclusively establish it.”

The court also said Reiner failed to demonstrate that he was likely to prevail with his claim. In light of the “provocative emails,” the responses from Martinez were not the type of “outrageous” behavior that would support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.