United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 2, 2020*

Decided November 6, 2020

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Nos. 19-3015 & 20-1420

IN RE: FELIPE N. GOMEZ

 Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 19-D-19

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

In this consolidated appeal, attorney Felipe Gomez challenges two disbarment 

orders from the Executive Committee for the Northern District of Illinois. The 

Committee twice had ordered Gomez’s disbarment based on his pattern of sending 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Nos. 19-3015 & 20-1420 Page 2

harassing and threatening communications to other lawyers. Because the Committee 

acted well within its discretion to impose such discipline, we affirm. 

Gomez, who was licensed to practice law in 2004, was accused in April 2019 by 

the City Prosecutor of the City of Chicago of sending, through emails and voicemails, 

threatening and harassing communications to other attorneys. The Executive 

Committee for the Northern District of Illinois, which handles the court’s disciplinary 

proceedings, sent Gomez a show-cause order, directing him to explain why he should 

not be disciplined for violating ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4(a) and 

8.4(d) (regarding prejudicial and inappropriate conduct). Gomez did not respond—he 

maintains that he never received the show-cause order—and in June 2019, the 

Committee, finding him in violation of the ABA’s Model Rules, suspended him from 

practicing law in the district for four months. 

In May and June 2019, the Committee received two more letters from local 

attorneys accusing Gomez of sending harassing and threatening emails. The Committee

again ordered Gomez to show cause why he should not be further disciplined for 

violating the same two provisions of the ABA Model Rules. Gomez—who does not 

dispute that he received the new order—responded that his emails were not subject to 

discipline because, first, he had sent them in his capacity as a litigant and not as an 

attorney and, second, they were communications made in furtherance of settlement 

negotiations and thus protected under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. 

In October, the Committee, invoking its authority to control abusive conduct 

before its court, see In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 905 (7th Cir. 2003), ordered Gomez 

disbarred for two years. The Committee agreed with Gomez’s first argument in the 

context of ABA Model Rule 4.4(a) but determined that ABA Model Rule 8.4(d) was not 

limited to lawyers acting in the course of representing a client. As for Gomez’s 

argument concerning Federal Rule of Evidence 408, the Committee found that the rule 

did not insulate harassing statements made during settlement negotiations from 

discipline. Gomez promptly appealed this order.

In November, Gomez sent to the Committee his own complaint charging two 

attorneys with misconduct, one of whom had reported him to the Committee six 

months earlier. The Committee rejected Gomez’s complaint as meritless and ordered 

him again to show cause why he should not be further disciplined for making frivolous 

assertions against the two lawyers in violation of Rule 8.4(d). Gomez did not respond, 
Nos. 19-3015 & 20-1420 Page 3

and in February 2020 the Committee extended the period for him to seek reinstatement 

by two more years. 

Gomez then filed a second notice of appeal purporting to challenge several of the 

Committee’s orders—from June 2019, October 2019, and February 2020—as well as a 

district court’s minute entry from March 2019 in a civil suit involving one of the 

attorneys who reported him to the Committee. 

We previously ruled that Gomez’s attempt to appeal the March 2019 minute 

entry and June 2019 order were untimely and not reviewable. We also consolidated 

Gomez’s two remaining appeals, which cover the Committee’s orders of October 2019 

(No. 19-3015) and February 2020 (No. 20-1420).

On appeal, Gomez challenges the Committee’s October 2019 ruling by reprising 

his argument that the ABA Model Rules apply only to attorneys representing clients 

and not to him—a pro se litigant who “happen[ed] to be an attorney.” But he does not 

meaningfully contest the Committee’s determination that Rule 8.4(d) can extend to 

lawyers’ conduct beyond the representation of a client. Rule 8.4(d) is broadly worded, 

prohibiting lawyers from engaging “in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration 

of justice,” and courts have applied the rule to lawyers outside the context of client 

representation. See Ellen J. Bennett & Helen W. Gunnarsson, Annotated Model Rules of 

Professional Conduct, CTR FOR PROF. RESP. (9th ed. 2019) (collecting cases). Given the 

deference we afford disbarment orders, see In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 488 (7th Cir. 

1995), we regard the Committee’s application of that rule to be within its discretion. 

Gomez next challenges the Committee’s February 2020 order on grounds that it 

disciplined him merely on the basis of a letter that he wrote to the Committee. This 

challenge is frivolous. The Committee had no other evidence to consider because 

Gomez did not respond to its Rule to Show Cause. 

Lastly, to the extent Gomez seeks to challenge the June 2019 order (he asserts, for 

instance, that his failure to receive the initial show-cause order somehow voids the 

subsequent show-cause orders), we lack jurisdiction to review the order because he did

not appeal it until well after the 60-day deadline. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i); Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
Nos. 19-3015 & 20-1420 Page 4

We have considered Gomez’s other arguments, and none has merit.1

AFFIRMED

1 Gomez is not a member of the Seventh Circuit bar, so we do not need to take 

separate action.