Coercion

Most jurisdictions classify coercion as a specific statutory crime. It typically involves restricting another person’s freedom of action by threatening to commit a crime, accuse someone of a crime or expose a secret.

The prosecution does not need to prove that physical force was actually used; the credible threat of force is sufficient. We frequently see these charges arise in domestic disputes, debt collection efforts or workplace conflicts where one party aggressively leverages their position.

If you are charged with a crime, proving you were coerced can result in a full acquittal. To succeed with a duress defense, the defendant must show they were under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The threat must be present and unavoidable. A vague threat of future harm is usually insufficient. We work to reconstruct the timeline of events to demonstrate that our client had no reasonable alternative but to comply with the coercer’s demands.

In civil law, coercion is often referred to as undue influence or economic duress. This occurs when a contract is signed or a will is drafted under pressure that overcomes the victim’s free agency.

Courts will invalidate these documents if it can be proven that the victim was deprived of the meaningful choice to refuse. This is a powerful tool in business litigation and probate disputes, allowing us to unwind unfair transactions that were essentially extorted.

The threat is the engine of coercion. It can be a threat to inflict bodily injury, damage property or even take action against a third party. Crucially, the threat does not always have to be illegal in itself.

For example, threatening to file a lawsuit is generally legal. However, threatening to file a frivolous lawsuit to force someone to sign a contract can constitute coercion. We analyze the legality and intent behind the threat to determine if it crosses the line from hard bargaining to criminal conduct.

The prosecutor must prove specific intent. It is not enough that the victim felt intimidated; the defendant must have intended to force the victim to act or refrain from acting.

This element is often the weak point in the prosecution’s case. If we can demonstrate that the defendant was merely expressing anger or frustration without a specific goal of compulsion, the charge of coercion may fail. We scrutinize the communications between the parties to find evidence of intent or the lack thereof.

While similar, coercion and extortion have distinct legal boundaries. Extortion typically involves obtaining property or money through threats, whereas coercion focuses on compelling action or behavior.

The distinction matters because the penalties and defenses differ. We ensure that our clients are not overcharged. If a dispute was purely behavioral without a financial component, we argue against the application of stricter extortion statutes.

To void a contract, the plaintiff must prove that the other party engaged in a wrongful act that precluded the exercise of free will. This is a high bar.

Standard business pressure or a difficult financial situation does not constitute duress. The pressure must be wrongful, such as a supplier threatening to breach an existing contract at a critical moment unless the buyer agrees to a massive price hike. We gather evidence of this wrongful pressure to petition the court for rescission of the agreement.

Coercion often hides in the details of negotiation. Threats to blacklist a company, ruin a professional reputation or disclose trade secrets can be the basis for a coercion claim.

We analyze the negotiation history, looking for ultimatums that violate the standards of fair dealing. When a party uses leverage that is legally unrelated to the transaction at hand to force a concession, they are engaging in coercive conduct that creates liability.

Employees are frequently victims of coercion regarding severance agreements, non-compete clauses or resignation. An employer cannot force an employee to resign by threatening to fabricate cause for termination.

Such actions can lead to claims for constructive discharge and wrongful termination. We help employees document these coercive meetings and challenge the validity of any separation agreements signed under the threat of reputational harm.

Coercive control involves a strategic pattern of isolation, degradation and micromanagement. This may include monitoring a partner’s time, controlling their access to money or depriving them of basic necessities.

Unlike a single assault, this is a cumulative offense. We work with clients to document the daily reality of their lives, creating a comprehensive log of the controlling behavior that presents a clear picture of the abuse to the judge.

A finding of coercive control can radically alter the outcome of a divorce. It can be the basis for denying custody to the abusive parent or awarding the victim a greater share of the marital assets.

We argue that a parent who exercises coercive control lacks the capacity to co-parent effectively. By proving that the power dynamic is abusive, we protect our clients from being forced into mediation or shared custody arrangements that would perpetuate the coercion.

Standard restraining orders focus on physical violence, but new statutes allow for protection orders based on coercive control. We petition the court for orders that specifically prohibit the controlling behaviors, such as tracking the victim’s location or contacting their employer.

Violating these orders carries criminal consequences. We ensure that the order is drafted broadly enough to cover the subtle forms of manipulation used by the abuser.

In the modern era, coercion leaves a digital footprint. We subpoena text messages, emails and social media records. Often, the abuser will feel comfortable making threats via text that they would deny in court.

We also look for patterns in digital activity, such as a barrage of messages demanding an immediate response or the use of tracking software. This metadata helps to objectively prove the intensity and frequency of the intimidation.

Witnesses may not have seen the direct threat, but they often observe the change in the victim’s behavior. We interview friends, colleagues and family members who can testify to the victim’s state of mind during the relevant period.

Testimony that the victim appeared terrified, withdrawn or unusually compliant supports the claim of coercion. We also look for witnesses who heard the abuser making similar threats to others, establishing a pattern of conduct.

In cases of prolonged coercive control or severe duress, we employ forensic psychologists. These experts can explain to a judge or jury why a victim might have complied with demands rather than seeking help.

They can articulate the psychological paralysis that occurs under threat. This expert testimony is crucial for countering the victim-blaming narrative that often arises in defense arguments, clarifying that compliance was a survival strategy, not consent.