What is Extortion?

Extortion is a serious criminal offense involving the use of threats or fear to obtain property, money, or services from another person. California jury instructions 1800 and 1830 outline the elements of the crime of extortion under California law. The actual Penal Code sections are sections 518 and 519.

Extortion cases are often defended on the grounds that the person making the threat was exercising his or her rights to free speech, but if the speech meets the criteria of sections 518 and 519, it is not protected speech. When President Trump was faced with monetary demands from Stormy Daniels, Daniel Horowitz wrote about the failure of the New York Attorney General to charge her conduct as extortion.

Similar extortions are taking place daily in cities like Los Angeles as high profile people are regularly shaken down in a similar manner.

A Patient Threatens a Medical Board Report Unless the Doctor Settles a Malpractice Case -Is this Extortion?

If a patient is unhappy with his medical treatment and threatens to report a doctor to the medical board unless he pays money for what the patient claims is malpractice - is this extortion in California?

Yes, this scenario squarely fits the legal definition of extortion under California law.

When a patient threatens to expose a professional to a regulatory body (like the Medical Board of California) or accuse them of a crime/misconduct to extract money, it crosses the line from a standard legal dispute into criminal territory—even if the patient claims the money is for a "malpractice settlement."

Here is how California law treats this specific situation.

The Legal Framework: Penal Code Section 518

Under California Penal Code Section 518, extortion is defined as obtaining something of value (usually money) from another person, with their consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear.

For this specific scenario, Penal Code Section 519 outlines what constitutes a wrongful threat capable of inducing "fear." The statute explicitly covers threats to:

Accuse the individual (or a relative/family member) of any crime.
Expose, or impute to them, any deformity, disgrace, or crime.
Expose any secret affecting them.

A threat to file a fraudulent report with the Medical Board to ruin a physician's reputation and livelihood unless paid off fits directly under exposing a "disgrace" or a "secret" calculated to induce fear.

Crucial Nuances Under California Law

There are a few distinct legal realities regarding civil extortion in California that apply here:

1. Truth is Not a Defense

Even if the malpractice claim were real (though your scenario notes it is fake), threatening criminal prosecution or a regulatory report to extract money is still extortion. In California, you cannot use the threat of criminal or administrative reporting as leverage to settle a private debt or claim. The legal system draws a sharp line between demanding compensation for actual damages and using a regulatory threat as a bludgeon to force a payout.

2. Demand vs. Payment

Under California law, if the doctor actually pays the money, the crime is Completed Extortion (a felony). If the doctor refuses to pay and instead reports the incident, the crime is Attempted Extortion (Penal Code Section 524), which can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

3. The Litigation Privilege Has Limits

California has very broad protections for settlement demands but a threat to report a person to a professional body (or not) depending on whether money is paid is over the line.

While demand letters sent by attorneys are generally protected by California’s litigation privilege (Civil Code Section 47(b)), the California Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Flatley v. Mauro (2006) that the litigation privilege does not protect demand letters or threats that constitute extortion as a matter of law. When a threat to report someone to authorities or media is completely unrelated to the collection of the actual alleged debt, it loses all cloaks of legal protection.

To understand how a settlement demand can go over the line and become extortion I will give examples from a case I had where author Terry McMillan was threatened with public humiliation if she did not pay money in a lawsuit with her soon to be ex-husband and I will discuss other high profile cases as well but first - let's look at the basics.

What are the Elements of Extortion?

Every crime has elements that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here are the elements of extortion.

1. Intent to Obtain Money, Property or Services

The defendant must have intended to obtain money, property, or services from another person.
This intent is central, as the goal of an extortion has to be to gain something of value.

2. Use of Force or Fear

The defendant must have used force or instilled fear in the victim to achieve their objective.

Fear can be induced through threats such as:

Threatening Public humiliation by exposing information that may be true but which is humiliating if released.
Threatening physical harm to the victim or their family.
Threatening to damage the victim’s property.
Threatening to accuse the victim of a crime.
Threatening to expose a secret that could harm the victim’s reputation or cause embarrassment.

3. Victim’s Consent Induced by Fear

The victim must have consented to give up their property or perform the requested act due to the fear caused by the defendant’s threats.

This consent is not voluntary but a direct result of coercion, compelling the victim to comply to avoid the threatened consequences.

4. Property or Services Obtained

The defendant must have actually obtained the property, money, or services as a result of the extortion.

This element ensures the crime is complete when the defendant achieves their unlawful objective.

Examples of Extortion

Consider these scenarios:

Blackmail: A person threatens to reveal compromising photos unless the victim pays a large sum.

Workplace Extortion: An employer threatens to fire an employee unless they perform uncompensated work.

Threats of Violence: A person demands payment from a shop owner, threatening to burn down their store if they refuse.

Each involves a threat, fear, and intent to unlawfully obtain something of value, meeting the criteria for extortion.

Legal Consequences of Extortion

Extortion is typically charged as a felony in California, with penalties including:

The Rule for Doctors

The Professional Bottom Line: When a patient uses the threat of a Medical Board report as a financial lever rather than pursuing legitimate civil remedies (like a standard insurance claim or a civil lawsuit), they have crossed from a civil dispute into a criminal act.

When is a Lawyer Letter Demanding Money an Extortion?

This is the technical part where the courts have struggled to allow free speech and strong money demands but at the same time bar criminal conduct under the guise of a settlement negotiation.

When a lawyer writes a letter threatening to sue unless his client is paid money is that extortion?

Generally "no" it is protected by the litigation privilege. The litigation privilege, codified in California Civil Code Section 47(b), protects lawyers and their clients for writing demand letters and other communications (and conduct) done to get money for allegedly improper behavior by someone else. What does that mean? It means legal demands are highly protected even if the demand is claimed by the other side to be "fraudulent, perjurious, unethical, or even illegal.” Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal.App.4th 892, 920 (2002).

But doesn't that mean that even vicious, unfounded claims are encouraged? Yes, that is exactly what happens and the California Supreme Court has even said that this get out of jail free card is necessary. It "is the ‘price that is paid for witnesses who are free from intimidation by the possibility of civil liability for what they say….'” Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205, 212 (1990) “The principal purpose of section [47(b)] is to afford litigants and witnesses the utmost freedom of access to the courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions.” “To effectuate its vital purposes, the litigation privilege is held to be absolute in nature.” Silberg at 215.

For more on this see our blog What is Extortion by Letter?

Flatley v. Mauro

There are very narrow exceptions. The case of Flatley v. Mauro primarily addressed the legal boundaries of extortion within the context of pre-litigation communications.

Michael Flatley is an American-Irish dancer, choreographer, and musician who become quite famous with his high energy dance performances as lead dancer for the group that created the shows Riverdance and Lord of the Dance.

A lawyer sent a letter accusing him of rape and threatening to publicize the rape unless money was paid. Michael Flately established without any dobut that the rape charge was fake and that the lawyer knew the rape claim was fake.

The court found that the demand letter sent by attorney Mauro to Michael Flatley constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law . (Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006)). This was due to the extreme nature of the threats made within the letter, which included threats to publicly accuse Flatley of rape and to report and publicize unspecified legal violations unless a substantial monetary settlement was paid. But the key was that the attorney and the client knew that no rape had ever taken place. It was a completely invented scheme.

Representing Author Terry McMillan Against Extortion Threats

Terry McMillan vs. Jonathan Plummer Case

Terry McMillan, found herself embroiled in a high-profile legal dispute during her divorce from Jonathan Plummer. Their relationship had inspired her novel “How Stella Got Her Groove Back,” which explored a May-December romance.

Key Details - Divorce and Allegations:

In 2005, Terry McMillan and Jonathan Plummer divorced. The divorce proceedings took a contentious turn when Plummer revealed that he was gay. McMillan alleged that their marriage was “based on deceit” and accused Plummer of marrying her for financial gain and U.S. citizenship. Plummer disputed those allegations.

Reputation Damage and Lawsuit:

McMillan filed a lawsuit against her ex-husband, seeking $40 million in damages. She claimed that Plummer had intentionally tarnished her reputation during the divorce process. The lawsuit accused Plummer and his lawyer, Dolores Sargent, of conspiring to harm McMillan’s personal and professional standing.

The lawsuit alleged that certain statements relating to settlement in the divorce action were extortion. The lawsuit claimed that the demand made were that the case should settle and if it didn’t there would be negative publicity. Dancer Michael Flately had filed a lawsuit claiming that a demand letter from a lawyer was extortion and not protected conduct. This lawsuit created a very narrow window to file a lawsuit on those grounds. The lawsuit was strongly contested with the lawyer and Plummer claiming they were just stating a fact and not making any threats express or implied.

In suing the attorney for making these allegations Terry McMillan argued that the attorney used the threat of a painful exposure of her personal life details as a way to force her to pay money that was not otherwise due in the divorce.

In part the lawsuit said:

"The defendants conspired and formed a plan to threaten to humiliate and embarrass Terry McMillan," the lawsuit said, "and violate her privacy and place her in harm's way,and threatened to damage her professional and personal standing in an attempt to extort monies from her."

The negative publicity had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRY McMILLAN. It was to humiliate her because she fell so in love with a grifter. Now Jonathan Plummer claims he believed he was straight and found out he was not. But in the threats the implication was that her love story would be ruined by showing how she was manipulated. It was a terrible threat by Plummer's lawyer. It took genuine human pain and attempted to monetize it.

McMillan's allegations include emotional distress, invasion of privacy and placing her in a "false light" to harm her professionally and personally. She also claimed that Plummer violated a restraining order by calling her to speak with her son. Remember that Terry was not a Hollywood type. She was a real mother, real person and her relationships were real as well. This meant that the pain suffered by her son was deep and genuine. He was not some trust fund kid. He was a brilliant, caring young man and Jonathan's reaching out to him under these circumstances was painful (which is acceptable) but potentially manipulative and damaging given the extortionate conduct described in the lawsuit.

The Legal Issue - Despicable, Brutal and Greedy Threats are Usually Protected in Legal Proceedings

However under California's anti-SLAPP lawsuit even bad faith legal filings have broad protection as it is an exercise of protected speech. To see if the speech is protected under the anti SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16) the court determines whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing that the lawsuit arises from an act in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech. (Laker v. Bd. of Trustees, 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 762 (2019).) The determination is based upon the pleadings themselves and requires that the defendant identify all allegations of protected activity and all claims for relief supported by those allegations. (Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (2016).)

“A claim arises from a protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1062 (2017).) The Courts must “consider the elements of the challenged claims and what actions by defendant supply those elements and . . . form the basis for liability.” (Laker, 32 Cal.App.5th at 771.)
If a defendant meets its burden on the first step, the burden shifts and the court then examines, under the second prong, whether the plaintiff has shown a probability of success on the merits. (Baral, 1 Cal.5th at 396.) This step is a “summary-judgment” like process under which the court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicts but accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true and determines whether the plaintiff stated a “legally sufficient claim” and a prima facie factual showing. (Baral at 384-385.) Demurrer type arguments, statute of limitations arguments apply to the 2nd Prong as a defendant may attack a plaintiff’s showing on prong two by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law. (Baral at 385.) If the plaintiff cannot meet its burden, allegations of protected activity supporting the targeted claim are stricken from the complaint. (Baral at 396.)

There are ethical issues if the attorney makes claims that are completely unsupported by the facts but he/she pretends that they are while in reality an extortion is taking place.

“[A]n attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause.” [Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 970.]

A lawyer making extortions threats is a co-conspirator to the crime and also violates Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” See also: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Ultimately in the Terry McMillan lawsuit the court found that the attorney's conduct was protected but the court did not find that the same protection applied to the (soon to be) ex-husband. The lawsuit continued against Jonathan Plummer.

Our Case Against Actor Mel Gibson

When we took over the Oksana Grigorieva case against actor Mel Gibson, Gibson's team had approached the Los Angeles District Attorney's office via a friendly investigating officer and sought to have extortion charges brought against Oksana. She of course was the victim of a criminal assault and Mel Gibson ultimately was convicted. However, at that time no case had held that the litigation privilege was a shield against criminal charges. The law now says this. As of 2019 there is a specific court ruling holding that the litigation privilege applies in a criminal case. See: People v. Toledano, 36 Cal.App.5th 715, 728 (June 24, 2019) (“Thus, the litigation privilege may apply to criminal prosecutions of extortion.”); Toledano at 730

Learn more about our $ 25 Million Dollar Victory Against Mel Gibson

Stormy Daniels Extorted Donald Trump (but got away with it)

What about Donald Trump and the threats of exposure made by so-called "Porn Star" Stormy Daniels. Was that extortion? In California the basic law of extortion in California is defined in Penal Code § 518, which states that extortion involves the obtaining of property or other benefit rom another, by threatening a wrongful use of force or fear, or under the color of official right . What does that mean? Well for one thing "fear" is not just fear of being hurt.

Penal Code § 519 specifies the types of threats that can induce fear for the purposes of extortion, including threats to do unlawful injury, to accuse someone of a crime, or to expose a secret affecting an individual (Tran v. Nguyen, 97 Cal.App.5th 523 (2023)) TO EXPOSE A SECRET AFFECTING AN INDIVIDUAL!!!!!

The "secret" can be a "true secret". So when Stormy Daniels threatened to go public with her claims against Donald Trump, it should have been looked at as a classic extortion.

Criminal Defense Specialist

Daniel Horowitz is certified in criminal defense as a Specialist. Less than 500 lawyers in all of California are State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization designated criminal defense specialists. For extortion defense or in cases where extortion is being used a tactic against you - call Daniel Horowitz for expert advice. Call (925) 283-1863

Victims of Extortion - Threats to Doctors, Terry McMillan & President Trump