Legal landscape note: This article was originally published in 2016 and describes the law as it stood at that time. New Jersey law changes frequently.
Overview
You expect the lawyers on both sides of a criminal case to fight hard and to play by the rules. When a prosecutor turns a DA's office against a courtroom adversary's private life, the damage reaches past one career -- it shakes confidence in every case that office touches. That is what a 2016 lawsuit alleged: Deputy Public Defender Christina Behle of Los Angeles County sued District Attorney Lisa Tanner over a calculated campaign of retaliation that included the distribution of intimate photographs and text messages obtained from her husband's smartphone. The case raised serious concerns about prosecutorial ethics, attorney professionalism, and the boundaries of personal conduct within the criminal justice system.
While the case originated in California, the ethical principles at stake -- including attorney discipline rules, invasion of privacy, and workplace retaliation -- carry direct implications for New Jersey prosecutors and public defenders practicing in Hudson, Essex, and Camden counties.
The Allegations
According to the complaint, the dispute involved three parties: Deputy Public Defender Behle, Deputy Public Defender Michael Tanner, and District Attorney Lisa Tanner -- Michael Tanner's estranged but not-yet-divorced wife. NBC Los Angeles reported that the relationship between Behle and Michael Tanner left Lisa Tanner "deeply enraged," prompting what the lawsuit characterized as a conscious decision to publicly and professionally humiliate Behle.
The complaint alleged that Lisa Tanner instructed her daughter to access files on Michael Tanner's smartphone and retrieve materials of a "compromising nature," including intimate text messages and explicit photographs. These images were then allegedly distributed to "dozens of the DA's office employees." Behle further alleged that Lisa Tanner sent the photographs directly to her with a caption reading "send your pathetic photos to someone else's husband."
Claims Raised
Behle's lawsuit asserted multiple causes of action:
- Invasion of Privacy: The unauthorized access and distribution of private communications and images
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The extreme and outrageous nature of the alleged conduct
- Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: Behle alleged she was denied a promotion to "Grade V" and was forced to take leave due to severe emotional distress
Professional Ethics Implications
The case presented a stark breach of the ethical obligations governing prosecutors. Under the American Bar Association Model Rules -- adopted in substantial form by both California and New Jersey -- attorneys are prohibited from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. See Rule 8.4(d). New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, similarly prohibit lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. See RPC 8.4(c).
When prosecutors engage in personal vendettas that compromise their professional judgment, the integrity of the entire criminal justice system suffers. Defendants in pending cases handled by the involved offices faced the possibility of motions to recuse and challenges to the fairness of proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The unauthorized distribution of private images by a prosecutor raises serious ethical and legal concerns
- Invasion of privacy claims may arise when intimate materials are accessed and shared without consent
- Prosecutorial misconduct can affect the integrity of criminal cases handled by the involved office
- New Jersey RPC 8.4 prohibits attorneys from dishonest or prejudicial conduct
- Workplace retaliation claims may accompany privacy violations when career advancement is affected
Reviewed by Britt J. Simon, Esq., Managing Partner -- Simon Law Group, LLC -- May 2026
The content on this website is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Every case is different. You should consult with a qualified attorney before making any legal decisions. Contacting us through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.