When Words Cross the Line: Lawyer Felipe N. Gomez Suspended for Harassment
In the legal profession, words are a lawyer’s greatest tool but they can also become their downfall. Few cases illustrate this better than the disciplinary saga of Felipe Nery Gomez, a Chicago attorney who turned his inbox into a battleground. What started as heated disputes with opposing counsel spiraled into years of harassment, threats, and insults that would ultimately cost Gomez his law licenses in multiple jurisdictions.
This is the story of how a series of abusive emails unraveled a decades-long legal career and why Gomez’s downfall serves as a stark warning for attorneys everywhere.
Illinois Supreme Court Order (2022): Suspension for abusive and harassing emails
•ABA Journal (2022): Coverage of Gomez’s suspension
•Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (2020): Affirmation of disbarment orders
•Wisconsin Supreme Court Order (2023): Reciprocal three-year suspension
A Pattern of Abusive Emails
Gomez was not just an attorney sending strongly worded messages his emails wereBy September 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court had seen enough. Gomez was suspended for three years and until further order of the court. The ruling made clear that his emails weren’t just rude they undermined the very integrity of the legal profession.
But Illinois was only one chapter in this escalating saga.
Years earlier, in November 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had already reviewed Gomez’s conduct after the Northern District of Illinois disbarred him. The federal court described his email tirades as harassing, unprofessional, and incompatible with the standards of legal practice, affirming the disciplinary actions.
What made the case particularly striking was that Gomez never seemed to grasp the severity of his conduct. Instead of showing contrition, his tone grew more combative, often blaming others for his own escalating disputes.
Wisconsin Steps In
For attorneys licensed in multiple states, discipline in one jurisdiction often triggers what’s called “reciprocal discipline.” That’s exactly what happened to Gomez.
In November 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court followed Illinois’ lead, imposing its own three-year suspension after Gomez failed to report the Illinois discipline. The Wisconsin court highlighted that attorneys are bound by professional obligations across every jurisdiction where they’re licensed.
In other words: when one state takes action, others are likely to follow.
Why This Case Matters
The Gomez case is more than just a cautionary tale it’s a lesson about the professional and personal consequences of letting anger bleed into advocacy.
1.Emails are permanent records What might feel like venting in the heat of the moment can quickly become evidence of misconduct.
2. Zealous advocacy has limits Lawyers are expected to fight for their clients, but harassment and intimidation are never acceptable strategies.
3.Reciprocal discipline is real One suspension can snowball into multiple states, shutting down a legal career entirely.
Conclusion
Felipe Nery Gomez’s story is a reminder that in law, civility is not optional. His choice to weaponize words in emails rather than wield them with professionalism led to a multi-year suspension and a tarnished reputation.
For attorneys, the lesson is simple but powerful: the line between passionate advocacy and professional misconduct is thin, and crossing it can end a career.
Independent Journalism Needs You
You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.
We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.
If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.
Reader Supported
This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.
We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.
Join 47 readers who donated this month
47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters
Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.
The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.
