Filing with:
- Attorney Grievance Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
- The State Bar of California, Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Jurisdictional Note: Newman was admitted in the Second Department but maintains his office at 99 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005 (New York County). Jurisdiction over attorney discipline is based on office location, not department of admission. New York County falls within the First Judicial Department. (Source: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/attorneys/grievance/complaints.shtml)
California Jurisdictional Note: Newman is admitted to the California State Bar (Bar No. 190547, active status). Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5, the State Bar of California retains disciplinary authority over any member of the California bar regardless of where the conduct occurs. (Rule 8.5: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/New-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-8.pdf)
Subject Attorney: Randall Scott Newman, Esq.
- New York Registration Number: 4078283
- California State Bar Number: 190547
- Business Name: Randall S. Newman, Esq.
- Office Address: 99 Wall Street, Suite 3727, New York, NY 10005-4301 (New York County)
- Phone: (212) 797-3735
- Email: rsn@randallnewman.net
- Website: www.randallnewman.net
- Admitted in New York: November 20, 2002 (Second Department)
- Law School: University of Akron
- New York Registration Status: Currently registered (next registration November 2026)
- California License Status: Active
Date: February 2026
This complaint presents documented evidence that Randall Scott Newman, an attorney licensed in New York & California, has engaged in a pattern of professional misconduct spanning from approximately September 2025 through January 2026. The most serious documented conduct includes:
-
encouraging another person to commit suicide in writing
-
acknowledging the conduct & expressing concern about disbarment;
-
communicating indirectly with a represented party to extract case-related information through a third party
-
targeted harassment of disabled individuals, religious individuals, & opposing parties in pending litigation.
This was all conducted through business social media accounts Mr. Newman uses to advertise his legal services & discuss active cases. Each allegation below is supported by screenshots, video timestamps, or email records.
Newman has a YouTube channel called "The DMCA Lawyer" & a Discord account under the handle "RSN" on the Really Cool News Discord server. These are not private personal accounts. The YouTube channel advertises Newman's legal services & displays the same business email he uses in litigation filings. See Exhibit 1.
The channel prominently promotes his business contact information. See Exhibit 2.
Newman also operates the Discord account "RSN" on the Really Cool News Discord server, which he uses while discussing his active cases. See Exhibit 3.
Every act described below was committed through these business-facing accounts. This complaint does not address private conduct; rather, we're focusing on conduct performed under the banner of Newman's law practice.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(b): A lawyer or law firm shall not engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. (22 NYCRR 1200.0, Rule 8.4(b); full text at https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-1200.8.4)
Encouraging suicide may constitute a criminal offense under New York Penal Law Section 120.30, which provides that a person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he intentionally causes or aids another person to attempt suicide. Promoting a suicide attempt is a class E felony.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(d): A lawyer or law firm shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(h): A lawyer or law firm shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer.
California Business & Professions Code § 6106: "The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension." This is the single most powerful California disciplinary provision; it covers all conduct in any context & requires no criminal conviction.
Encouraging suicide is a felony under California Penal Code § 401(a): "Any person who deliberately aids, advises, or encourages another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony" punishable by 16 months, 2, or 3 years in state prison. A felony conviction involving moral turpitude triggers summary disbarment under B&P § 6102(c).
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b): A lawyer shall not "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
On December 1, 2025, Newman engaged in an argument with another user on the Discord server "Really Cool News" & told the user "Go Kill yourself," followed by "Everyone will be happier." Discord moderators deleted the message for violating terms of service. The deleted message is visible in a quote reply that reads "Original message was deleted." See Exhibit 5.
just stating the obvious." See Exhibit 8.
When confronted by other users, Newman confirmed the statement & doubled down. He wrote: "Violation of what? This is fight zone. I didn't threaten him, I offered him a suggestion to end his miserable existence. Unfortunately, I doubt he will take my advice." See Exhibit 6.
In a private conversation forwarded to the complainant by a concerned third party, Newman expressed awareness that this conduct could result in disbarment. The exchange reads:
RSN: Do you have a screen shot of me telling Lobber to kill himself? Cicero: Nope. Someone does. RSN: Who? Cicero: & your comments after. I don't though. Nope. Not doing that. RSN: I may get disbarred...lol
See Exhibit 7.
Despite this acknowledged risk, Newman repeated the conduct. In a subsequent conversation, he stated: "I didn't threaten him. I suggested his family would be happier if he killed himself which is probably true.
On January 2, 2026, Newman told the same individual "There is still time if you know what I mean." See Exhibit 9.
He then posted a meme depicting a woman pretending to hang herself, removing any ambiguity about the meaning. See Exhibit 10.
Newman told another person to kill himself, confirmed the statement when challenged, acknowledged in private that it could lead to disbarment, & then repeated the same conduct weeks later. The progression from the initial statement through private acknowledgment of its severity to repetition shows that this is a pattern a pattern.
NY RPC Rule 4.2: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. (22 NYCRR 1200.0, Rule 4.2; full text at https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-1200.4.2)
NY RPC Rule 8.4(a): A lawyer or law firm shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2(a):
"In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer." Comment [3] to Rule 4.2 explains that the prohibition against communicating "indirectly" is intended to address situations where a lawyer seeks to communicate with a represented person through an intermediary such as an agent, investigator, or the lawyer's client. (See also: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/rules/rules-professional-conduct/current-rules-professional-conduct/chapter-4-transactions-persons-other-clients)
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a): A lawyer shall not "violate these rules or the State Bar Act, knowingly assist, solicit, or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another."
Cal. State Bar Formal Opinion No. 1993-131 established the controlling test: when the content of a communication with an opposing party originates with or is directed by the attorney, it is prohibited regardless of the method of transmission.
On or about September 19, 2025, Newman contacted Peter Coventry, an acquaintance of the complainant, by email. The purpose of the communication was to obtain information from the complainant concerning the pending litigation (Cordova v. Huneault et al., No. 5:25-cv-04685, N.D. Cal.). At the time of this contact, Newman knew the complainant was represented by attorney Steven Vondran. Newman's own emails confirm this awareness; he wrote that he had "predicted" the complainant would retain "Vondran." See Exhibit 41.
In a later communication, Newman asked Coventry to secretly ask the complainant whether he had deleted certain videos. See Exhibit 42.
Coventry informed the complainant about these communications & provided screenshots at the complainant's request. See Exhibit 43.
Rule 4.2 is one of the most strictly enforced rules in attorney discipline because it protects the attorney-client relationship. Newman's own emails demonstrate he knew the complainant was represented. Rather than contact opposing counsel, he used a third party to attempt to extract case-related information. This is a textbook Rule 4.2 violation compounded by a Rule 8.4(a) violation for attempting to circumvent the rules through the acts of another.
NY RPC Rule 7.3(a): A lawyer shall not engage in solicitation by in-person or telephone contact, or by real-time or interactive computer-accessed communication unless the recipient is a close friend, relative, former client, or existing client. (22 NYCRR 1200.0, Rule 7.3(a); full text at https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-1200.7.3)
NY RPC Rule 8.4(a): A lawyer or law firm shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct through the acts of another.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3(a): "A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted: (1) is a lawyer; or (2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer." (See also: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/rules/rules-professional-conduct/current-rules-professional-conduct/chapter-7-information-about-legal-services)
California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3(e): "'Solicitation' and 'solicit' refer to an oral or written targeted communication initiated by or on behalf of the lawyer that is directed to a specific person and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood as offering to provide, legal services." The phrase "on behalf of" means using a third party to solicit clients constitutes solicitation by the attorney.
California Business & Professions Code §§ 6151-6154: Separately criminalize using "runners" & "cappers"; agents who solicit business for attorneys; as misdemeanors punishable by up to a $15,000 fine or one year in jail. Contracts obtained through runners or cappers are void under § 6154.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a): Prohibits achieving prohibited results through the acts of another.
Cal. State Bar Formal Opinion No. 1997-148 held that an attorney who assists non-lawyers in marketing living trusts violates multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including the prohibitions on improper solicitation (former Rule 1-400) and aiding the unauthorized practice of law (former Rule 1-300). The opinion establishes the broader principle that an attorney cannot circumvent ethical prohibitions by acting through non-lawyer intermediaries.
Newman used YouTube's "@" tagging feature in community posts on his "The DMCA Lawyer" channel to send direct notifications to specific individuals with whom he has no prior professional relationship, directing them to email him. See Exhibits 11 & 12.
In video comment sections, Newman asked specific individuals to contact him so they could "get in on the action." See Exhibit 13.
On a livestream, at 1:03:43 - https://youtu.be/Gn5P3KkmJyI?t=3823 -
"I've been trying to get a hold of him for weeks.... I've sent him a couple of messages"
Newman admitted on camera that he knew he was not permitted to directly email potential clients, & that he was using the "@" tagging feature to circumvent this restriction.
On the same livestream at 1:19:04, Newman stated he wanted to contact "Johnny Somali" because people frequently use his content. A third party present on the stream then told viewers: if anyone knows how to reach Johnny Somali, email Randall. See Exhibit 15.
Newman's own on-camera admission that he knows direct email solicitation is prohibited, combined with his stated strategy of using YouTube tagging as a workaround, establishes both knowledge of the rule & intent to circumvent it. The use of a third party on the livestream to solicit on his behalf compounds the violation under Rule 8.4(a).
NY RPC Rule 4.4(a): In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(d): Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
NY RPC Rule 3.6(a): A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a): "A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will (i) be disseminated by means of public communication and (ii) have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."
California Business & Professions Code § 6106: Acts involving moral turpitude constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension, whether committed in the course of the attorney's practice or otherwise.
California's anti-doxxing statutes; Penal Code § 653.2 (criminal; prohibits electronic distribution of personal identifying information with intent to cause harassment, a misdemeanor) and Civil Code § 1708.89 (the "Doxing Victims Recourse Act," effective January 1, 2025; provides a private right of action for victims of doxxing with statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees); provide remedies for publishing someone's personal identifying information with intent to harass. A violation of Penal Code § 653.2 could independently constitute the "criminal act" contemplated by California Rule 8.4(b).
Newman created & published degrading images targeting the complainant & the complainant's wife, Nneka Ohiri, who are defendants in Newman's client's lawsuit. After the complainant mentioned in a livestream that his hair was thinning, Newman created an image depicting him as bald. See Exhibit 16.
After the complainant described his wife as beautiful during a livestream, Newman created & published an AI-generated image mocking her physical appearance. See Exhibit 17. Newman later removed this image from his channel.
After the complainant launched a GoFundMe to help pay legal fees, Newman published an image depicting the complainant as a homeless beggar. See Exhibit 18.
The case is being litigated on a contingency basis for the plaintiff, while the defense must pay out of pocket. Newman is making fun of the fact that he is costing someone money by bringing a suit against them as an experienced attorney.
Newman published the complainant's full residential address on his YouTube channel & personal website without redacting it. Newman then bragged about "unmasking" the complainant's identity & created an image depicting the complainant as a homeless man hiding in a cardboard box. See Exhibits 22 & 23.
On that same livestream, the plaintiff's representative stated the complainant was "stealing money" from viewers through a GoFundMe. Newman did not deny or correct this claim. See Exhibit 39.
In a separate comment section, Newman wrote that the complainant was "ripping off the subs until they realize it's a scam." See Exhibit 40. The complainant has raised approximately $27,000 through GoFundMe & has spent approximately $40,000 on legal fees in this matter; receipts are available upon request.
These actions serve no legitimate litigation purpose. They're designed to degrade, humiliate, & pressure opposing parties into settlement by making the litigation experience as personally painful as possible. Newman is the plaintiff's attorney in this case; he has a direct financial interest in the outcome due to his contingency fee arrangement. The publication of the complainant's home address, combined with the pattern of public ridicule, constitutes conduct with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass & burden a third person under Rule 4.4(a). The public statements accusing the complainant of fraud are extrajudicial statements by a litigating attorney that risk prejudicing potential jurors, given that a jury trial has been demanded.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(g): A lawyer or law firm shall not engage in conduct in the practice of law that the lawyer or law firm knows or reasonably should know constitutes harassment or discrimination on the basis of disability, among other protected characteristics. (As amended by joint order of New York's four Appellate Division departments, effective June 10, 2022; filed in the NYS Register July 6, 2022; codified at 22 NYCRR 1200.0, Rule 8.4(g).)
NY RPC Rule 8.4(h): Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4.1: Prohibits discrimination & harassment based on protected characteristics, including "physical disability" & "mental disability" (Rule 8.4.1(c)(1)), in conduct occurring (a) "in representing a client, or in terminating or refusing to accept the representation of any client" or (b) "in relation to a law firm's operations." (Effective November 1, 2018.)
California Business & Professions Code § 6106: Acts involving moral turpitude committed in any context; including outside the practice of law; constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension. Publicly mocking disabled individuals with slurs on business social media constitutes conduct showing "a flagrant disrespect for societal norms" under the moral turpitude standard established in In re Lesansky (2001) 25 Cal.4th 11. B&P § 6106 is the stronger companion authority because it has been actively enforced for decades & has no practice-of-law limitation, unlike Rule 8.4.1.
Using his business social media accounts, Newman created & published degrading images targeting individuals who use wheelchairs, tagging them directly within the community of people where he solicits new clients & business.
On stream, Newman says
"turns out you're some fuckin loser.... well you make it seem like you're some big fuckin's tud & turns out you're a fuckin loser... Can't even afford a new wheelchair"
See Exhibits 24 & 25.
Newman created an image depicting a disabled man on a bus alongside a depiction of the man's wife as a grossly overweight woman, after learning she was overweight. See Exhibit 26.
Newman posted comments insulting a person specifically because the person uses a wheelchair. See Exhibit 27.
Newman made comments ridiculing a man who was paralyzed after being shot by police. See Exhibit 28.
Newman described two wheelchair-bound individuals as "broke losers" & "lame gimps." See Exhibit 29.
New York's amended Rule 8.4(g) (effective June 10, 2022) prohibits harassment or discrimination on the basis of disability in conduct related to the practice of law. The rule covers "interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers, & others, while engaging in the practice of law" (Comment [3] to Rule 8.4(g)).
Because Newman conducted this harassment through the same professional accounts he uses to advertise his legal services & discuss his active cases, it constitutes conduct related to the practice of law. The term "lame gimps" directed at wheelchair-bound individuals goes beyond any definition of "petty slights or trivial inconveniences" that the rule's comments exclude.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(g): Prohibits harassment or discrimination on the basis of religion in conduct related to the practice of law.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(h): Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness.
NY RPC Rule 4.4(a): Respect for rights of third persons.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4.1: Prohibits harassment or discrimination on the basis of "religious creed," which is explicitly listed as a protected characteristic in Rule 8.4.1(c)(1). The rule applies to conduct in representing a client or in relation to a law firm's operations.
California Business & Professions Code § 6106: Acts involving moral turpitude in any context constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d): Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Patrick D'Arcy, a YouTuber who covered Newman's cases & offered criticism, had previously posted a video about a personal spiritual experience involving Jesus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYNN8tonIM). After discovering this video, Newman launched a sustained campaign targeting D'Arcy's faith.
Newman published AI-generated images targeting D'Arcy's spiritual experience. See Exhibits 30, 31, & 32.
Newman published a video comparing D'Arcy's spiritual experience to the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms. See Exhibit 33 (video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4GBzsQF_DR8).
Newman published additional AI-generated videos mocking Jesus. See Exhibit 34 (video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1BJFlYSTmQA).
Newman published another video harassing D'Arcy & mocking Jesus. See Exhibit 35 (video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SWPWUJ7ot0Q).
Newman used AI to clone D'Arcy's voice & create a video disrespecting D'Arcy's faith. See Exhibit 36 (video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wudLzsuXVbg).
When viewers criticized this conduct, Newman responded by saying he was not sorry & told people to "Cry Harder." See Exhibits 37 & 38.
This campaign lasted months, where AI-generated videos & images were made to target D'Arcy for his religious faith. It was conducted entirely through Newman's professional business accounts. Under the amended Rule 8.4(g), "religion" is an explicitly protected category. The sustained nature of the campaign, spanning multiple videos, images, & responses to criticism, eliminates any argument that this was a one-time lapse in judgment.
"A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state."
The New York Court of Appeals held in Schoenefeld v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.3d 22 (2015) that this statute "requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York." In Maritime District Development Co., LLC v. Toledano, the trial court held that "[b]y definition, a virtual office is not an actual office" (60 Misc.3d 1203A [Sup. Ct. NY County 2018]). The Appellate Division, First Department, agreed that an attorney's use of a virtual office solely as a mailing address and for service of process is insufficient to satisfy the physical office requirement under Schoenefeld (174 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2019]). Virtual offices with only mailbox services do not satisfy § 470.
NY RPC Rule 8.4(c): A lawyer or law firm shall not "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
NY RPC Rule 7.1: A lawyer shall not make false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1:
"A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation."
Newman lists his office as 99 Wall Street, Suite 3727, New York, NY 10005 on bar registrations, court filings, & his professional website. This address is a virtual mailbox operated by PhysicalAddress.com, a mail-forwarding service starting at $19.98/month. Customers select their own "suite" number at signup.
The building at 99 Wall Street is a 25-story building. "Suite 3727" implies a 37th floor that does not exist. The suite number is fabricated.
Newman's actual location is established by his own sworn court filing. In Cordova v. Huneault, Case No. 25-cv-04685-VKD (N.D. Cal.), Document 23-1, filed September 2, 2025, Newman signed a Declaration under penalty of perjury with the execution line: "Executed on this 2nd day of September, 2025, in Bangkok, Thailand."
In that same declaration, Newman describes retaining a process server to serve someone at "99 Wall Street"; & the process server "was unable to locate a suite" at that address.
Every element is independently verifiable: the building has 27 floors (public records), PhysicalAddress.com operates a virtual mailbox there (visit the website), customers choose their own suite numbers (signup flow), & Newman swore under oath he was in Thailand (PACER docket). Violation of § 470 results in disqualification from New York cases, inability to collect legal fees, & disciplinary referral. Listing a non-existent suite number on court filings & bar registrations is an affirmative misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(c).
NY RPC Rule 3.6(a): "A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."
NY RPC Rule 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a): "A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will (i) be disseminated by means of public communication and (ii) have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
Newman conducted regular YouTube livestreams where he discussed pending litigation in prejudicial detail, including legal strategy, specific evidence, & characterizations of judicial statements from off-the-record hearings.
On July 12–13, 2025, Newman & client Cordova livestreamed on Cordova's YouTube channel discussing Cordova v. Huneault in detail, including over 2,000 video takedowns, subpoena filings, & litigation strategy. (Source: ReallyCoolSite coverage of Dr. Dave livestream, Sept. 23, 2025)
In August/September 2025, after a status hearing, Newman & Cordova livestreamed publicly characterizing Judge DeMarchi's off-the-record statements; claiming she "attempted to dissuade Vondran from filing a motion to dismiss" & "wanted to hear debate on some of the claims." Off-the-record judicial statements are confidential; publicly broadcasting them on YouTube undermines the court's ability to manage cases informally. (Source: ReallyCoolSite coverage of jurisdiction hearing, Nov. 19, 2025)
Newman announced on YouTube that YouTube had disclosed identity information in response to his subpoenas, & that attorney Reed had provided Frauditor Roundup's identity, before this information appeared on the public docket. (Source: ReallyCoolSite coverage of DMA Sunday livestream, Sept. 23, 2025)
These are not isolated comments. Newman systematically uses YouTube livestreams to discuss pending litigation in detail that goes far beyond what Rule 3.6 permits. Disclosing a judge's off-the-record comments to a public YouTube audience is a direct violation: those statements are confidential by their nature. Newman also includes his YouTube channel URL in his federal court filing signature block, effectively using court documents to direct opposing parties & the public to a channel where he attacks defendants & discusses case strategy.
NY RPC Rule 4.4(a): "In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person."
NY RPC Rule 3.1: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1(a): A lawyer shall not: "(1) bring or continue an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or (2) present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
Newman filed federal lawsuits against at least two attorneys for the act of filing DMCA counter-notices on behalf of their clients; the statutory mechanism Congress created under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g) for a person who believes their content was wrongly taken down:
-
Robert Alan Reed; Sued in two separate cases:
- Liberty Troll LLC v. Reed, 5:25-cv-06878 (N.D. Cal.); filed Aug. 14, 2025
- Executive Lens LLC v. Reed, 5:25-cv-07150 (N.D. Cal.); filed Aug. 24, 2025
-
Lee Rapkin; Sued in Executive Lens LLC v. Rapkin, 5:25-cv-06048 (N.D. Cal.); filed Jul. 17, 2025
Filing a DMCA counter-notice is a core legal function; the equivalent of filing an answer to a complaint. Newman sued these attorneys under § 512(f) for "knowing misrepresentation" in the counter-notices. The § 512(f) "knowing misrepresentation" standard is subjective per Rossi v. MPAA, 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004), making these claims exceptionally difficult to prove.
The chilling effect has been documented: Reed's law practice has reportedly closed, & his DMCA counter-notice service (counterdmca.com) now returns a 404 error. (Source: ReallyCoolSite, "Liberty Troll Sues Frauditor Roundup, Attorney," Aug. 14, 2025; ReallyCoolSite, "DMCA v. DMCA; Attorneys Duke it Out," Nov. 18, 2025)
Newman publicly described one of these cases as "what happens when you mix YouTube bullying with legal malpractice lite"; publicly accusing an opposing attorney of malpractice outside of any disciplinary proceeding.
Suing attorneys for performing their core professional function; filing counter-notices on behalf of clients; has the substantial purpose of deterring future legal representation. The pattern of filing three separate lawsuits against two attorneys suggests a deliberate strategy to chill the willingness of lawyers to represent clients in DMCA disputes. The documented closure of Reed's practice provides concrete evidence of the chilling effect.
NY RPC Rule 3.1: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law."
NY RPC Rule 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1(a): A lawyer shall not: "(1) bring or continue an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or (2) present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law."
California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d): A lawyer shall not "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
Rule 3.1 does not require that a lawsuit succeed; it requires that there be a "basis in law & fact" at the time of filing "that is not frivolous." The question is whether a reasonable attorney would have concluded there was a good-faith basis to bring the case.
In copyright cases specifically, the landmark case Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F. Supp. 3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) held that YouTube reaction/commentary videos constitute fair use as a matter of law. After this decision, any attorney filing copyright claims against YouTube commentary/reaction videos must contend with this precedent.
Under California law, Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal.4th 958 (2004) holds that attorneys may be liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute lawsuits discovered to lack probable cause. In In re Scott, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 446 (2002), an attorney was suspended for filing four related harassing/vindictive lawsuits.
California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16) provides a mechanism to strike lawsuits that target protected speech, with mandatory attorney fee awards.
Newman filed at least eight federal lawsuits in the Northern District of California within approximately three to four months (June–September 2025) on behalf of YouTube content creators, despite his clients & defendants residing in Colorado, Florida, Canada, & Pakistan.
In Helping Hands for Dignity Coalition v. Gurka (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick directly questioned why he had jurisdiction over a case where the plaintiff lives in Colorado & the defendant lives in Florida. Newman admitted he was "unaware of case law establishing the jurisdiction in the Northern District of California." (Source: ReallyCoolSite, "Jurisdiction Issue to Derail Regan Benson v BlackHartKnight?", Nov. 19, 2025)
In Filax v. Tayyab (5:25-cv-07600, N.D. Cal.), Newman sued a Pakistan-based YouTuber despite the copyright not being registered; limiting available damages. Newman stated the lawsuit was primarily to give Tayyab "incentive to settle quickly & remove the video" & that he "was not concerned about the monetization status of the channel or video as he could not get infringement damages." (Source: ReallyCoolSite, "John Filax Sues Pakistan Based YouTuber for Copyright")
Filing a lawsuit where the attorney acknowledges no damages are available, solely to coerce a settlement, is a textbook statement of improper purpose under both Rule 3.1 & FRCP Rule 11(b).
Newman also uses YouTube to publicly harass & berate the same individuals he sues; creating AI-generated degrading images, mocking them on livestreams, publishing their home addresses, & calling them scammers. This isn't the conduct of an attorney pursuing legitimate copyright claims in good faith. Rather, it's use of the legal system as one component of a broader harassment campaign.
YouTube itself reviewed & restored multiple videos as fair use in several of Newman's DMCA disputes; suggesting the original takedowns lacked a good-faith basis. When the platform's own review process concludes the use is fair, it becomes increasingly difficult for the attorney to argue he had a good-faith basis for the takedown. (Source: ReallyCoolSite, "DMA Copyright Strike Campaign Hits 1A Audits Exposé")
The combination of (1) filing copyright claims against commentary videos likely protected by fair use, (2) YouTube restoring videos as fair use, (3) filing in a jurisdiction without supporting case law, (4) admitting to filing a suit solely to coerce settlement when no damages were available, & (5) simultaneously conducting a public harassment campaign against the same defendants establishes a pattern that goes beyond aggressive-but-legitimate litigation. The legal system is being used as a weapon in a coordinated campaign of harassment.
The allegations above aren't isolated incidents. It spans from approximately September 2025 through January 2026 & reflect a constant pattern.
Newman uses his professional business accounts to harass, degrade, & intimidate individuals, then doubles down when confronted. His private acknowledgment that the suicide encouragement could lead to disbarment, followed by repeating the same conduct weeks later, demonstrates that he is aware these actions violate professional standards & has chosen to continue regardless.
The newer allegations (#7–#10) reveal that the misconduct extends beyond personal conduct on social media into Newman's litigation practice itself: practicing through a fictitious address from a foreign country, systematically violating trial publicity rules through YouTube livestreams, suing opposing attorneys for performing their professional function, & using the courts to coerce settlements in cases he admits lack recoverable damages.
Newman's office is at 99 Wall Street, Suite 3727, New York, NY 10005 (New York County). The appropriate body is:
Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department 180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 401-0800 Email for new complaints: AD1-AGC-newcomplaints@nycourts.gov
Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/Committees&Programs/DDC/index.shtml
The State Bar of California accepts misconduct complaints via an online form or by mail:
Online: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/complaint/ Phone: 213-765-1000 Mail: State Bar of California, Office of Chief Trial Counsel, Intake Unit, 845 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515