1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 1 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
TonyBlony492,RBN19309
Filing username: TonyBlony492
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
TonyBlony492, Case No. To be assigned
Plaintiff,
vs. Complaint TonyBlony492 v.
iiCryptic_LawMD, iiCryptic_LawMD
Defendant.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, PARTIES, STATEMENT OF FACTS,
JURISDICTION
The Superior Court of the State of Ridgeway has original jurisdiction over this civil
matter pursuant to 3 R. Stat. § 131.004(c), which grants this Court authority over all civil
claims within the State.
VENUE
Venue is proper in Ridgeway County pursuant to 7 R. Stat. § 131.001, as the
actions giving rise to this dispute accrued, and the underlying legal proceeding occurred,
within this county.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 2 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
PARTIES
• The Plaintiff, TonyBlony492, is a Resident of the State of Ridgeway and a
licensed attorney in good standing with the Ridgeway State Bar.
• The Defendant, iiCryptic_LawMD, is a Resident of the State of Ridgeway
and currently serves as the Chief Public Defender of the State of Ridgeway.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On September 15, 2026, Plaintiff was retained by oral agreement by the
client Tortadiver to serve as co-counsel in the matter State v. Tortadiver,
RSC-CM-6368.
2. Plaintiff agreed to provide representation free of charge for the purpose of
building professional experience and reputation within the Ridgeway legal
community.
3. On September 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appearance as
co-counsel.
4. Shortly thereafter, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s appearance in the
publicly accessible court channel. Defendant publicly characterized the
appearance as “quite discourteous and unprofessional” and asserted that
an ethics issue existed.
5. However, no attorney ethical canon, statute, or established professional
rule makes a client’s decision to retain co-counsel, or the filing of a Notice
of Appearance after client consent, an ethics violation. At most, Defendant
raised a question of professional courtesy.
6. In private communications the same day, Defendant refused to withdraw
the objection unless a formal co-counsel agreement was drafted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 3 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
Defendant conditioned retraction of the objection on obtaining contractual
terms satisfactory to him and complained that Plaintiff was interfering with
his control of strategy.
7. Plaintiff offered Defendant full operational control over joint strategy and
agreed not to file anything without Defendant’s prior approval, in an effort
to protect the client’s interests and resolve the dispute quickly.
8. Despite these concessions, Defendant maintained the objection.
9. As a direct result of the dispute and the continued objection, the client
expressed fear of being ‘‘made a fool of in court’’ and terminated Plaintiff’s
representation, expressly stating that the termination was caused by the
court dispute rather than by any dissatisfaction with Plaintiff’s competence
or performance.
10. After the client terminated Plaintiff, Plaintiff informed Defendant of the
termination and requested that the objection be withdrawn.
11. Within approximately one minute of learning that the client had terminated
Plaintiff (and that Plaintiff could therefore no longer be required to enter
any co-counsel agreement), Defendant stated that he had filed a report
with the State Bar Ethical Committee and characterized Plaintiff’s conduct
as going ‘‘beyond a simple error.’’
12. Defendant’s actions caused the destruction of the professional relationship
between Plaintiff and the client and the loss of the associated reputational
and career benefit Plaintiff had sought to obtain.
TORTS, PRAYER FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE (7 R. Stat. § 121.203)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 4 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
(i) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
(ii) Under 7 R. Stat. § 121.203, any individual who damages another’s
business relationships, contracts, or career with a third party, causing
economic and career harm, commits tortious interference and is liable for
compensatory damages and may be liable for punitive damages of up to
$8,000.00.
(iii) Plaintiff had a lawful professional relationship with the client Tortadiver
arising from a valid oral agreement to serve as co-counsel.
(iv) Defendant had full knowledge of that relationship. Defendant learned of it
both through direct communications with Plaintiff on September 16, 2026,
and through prior access to the underlying case file.
(v) Defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship. Defendant objected
to Plaintiff’s appearance, publicly asserted that the appearance constituted
an ethics violation, and refused to withdraw the objection unless Plaintiff
agreed to a formal co-counsel arrangement on terms acceptable to
Defendant.
(vi) No Ridgeway statute or established professional rule makes a client’s
decision to retain co-counsel, or the filing of a Notice of Appearance after
client consent, an ethics violation. At most, Defendant raised a question of
professional courtesy. The ethics justification therefore lacked substantial
basis.
(vii) Defendant’s interference was without legal justification and was
undertaken for the improper purpose of forcing Plaintiff into a co-counsel
arrangement controlled by Defendant or, failing that, of preventing Plaintiff
from continuing the representation.
(viii) As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, the client
terminated Plaintiff’s representation, expressly citing the court dispute and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 5 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
the resulting fear of humiliation. Plaintiff thereby lost the professional
relationship and the associated career and reputational benefits he had
sought to obtain.
(ix) Defendant is therefore liable for compensatory damages and for punitive
damages of up to $8,000.00.
7 R. Stat. § 121.203 - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE — Any individual who
damages another’s business relationships, contracts, or career with a third
party causing economic and career harm to another commits tortious
interference and is liable for compensatory damages; and may be liable for
punitive damages of up to $8,000.00.
COUNT II: ABUSE OF PROCESS (7 R. Stat. § 121.402)
(i) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
(ii) Under 7 R. Stat. § 121.402, any individual who abuses a legal or
administrative process by providing vexatious, fraudulent, or frivolous
complaints or procedural hurdles to inflict harm upon another is liable for
damages, including injunctive relief and punitive damages of up to
$5,000.00.
(iii) Defendant used both a court process (the objection to Plaintiff’s
appearance) and an administrative process (the State Bar Ethical
Committee report) for improper, collateral purposes.
(iv) The primary purpose of maintaining the court objection was not to resolve
a genuine ethical or procedural dispute, but to compel Plaintiff to enter a
co-counsel agreement on terms dictated by Defendant. Defendant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 6 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
explicitly conditioned withdrawal of the objection on the drafting of such an
agreement.
(v) The ethics justification publicly offered for the objection lacked substantial
basis. No ethics violation had occurred. The objection was therefore
maintained for a purpose other than that for which the process was
designed.
(vi) After the client terminated Plaintiff’s representation and Plaintiff so
informed Defendant, Defendant filed a report with the State Bar Ethical
Committee within approximately one minute. The timing and surrounding
circumstances demonstrate that the report was filed as a retaliatory
measure once Defendant could no longer obtain the contractual
concession he had sought.
(vii) Defendant thereby used judicial and administrative processes as
instruments to pressure Plaintiff and, when that pressure failed, to
retaliate. Such use constitutes abuse of process.
(viii) As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered the loss of the
professional relationship, reputational harm, and the burden of responding
to an administrative complaint filed for an improper purpose.
(ix) Defendant is therefore liable for injunctive relief and for punitive damages
of up to $5,000.00.
7 R. Stat. § 121.402 - ABUSE OF PROCESS — Any individual who
abuses a legal process such as a court proceeding or administrative
proceeding by means of providing vexatious, fraudulent, or frivolous
complaints to get another in trouble commits abuse of process and shall be
liable for injunctive relief and punitive damages of up to $5,000.00.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 7 -
Complaint TonyBlony492 v. iiCryptic_LawMD
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TonyBlony492 respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendant iiCryptic_LawMD as follows:
(a) Nominal compensatory damages in the amount of $1.00 for the destruction
of the professional relationship;
(b) Punitive damages in the amount of $8,000.00 pursuant to 7 R. Stat. §
121.203 for tortious interference;
(c) Punitive damages in the amount of $5,000.00 pursuant to 7 R. Stat. §
121.402 for abuse of process;
(d) Such injunctive or other equitable relief as the Court deems just and
proper, including relief directed at any pending or future administrative
complaints arising from the same transactions and occurrences; and
(e) Any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
