County sued over lawyer’s alleged ‘vile’ outbursts

Published 3:57 pm Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Two county employees who say they have been hurt by Pacific County Prosecutor Michael Rothman’s “severe, vile and demeaning outbursts” have filed tort claims against the county. The 99-page claims were filed July 1. They allege Rothman has created a hostile work environment.

Attorney Victoria L. Vreeland is handling the claims, which presently do not seek a specified amount for damages because the harm is considered ongoing. She represents Brandi Huber, a former employee of the Pacific County Prosecutor’s Office who now works in the Pacific County Coroner’s Office, and Rikki Thompson, a senior court administrator for Pacific County Superior Court.

Two incidents reported

The two came forward earlier this year after several incidents transpired in which Rothman “flew off the handle” for no apparent reason. The alleged misbehavior was documented in a criminal investigation undertaken by the Pacific County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO).

The first happened June 7, 2024, when Thompson happened to encounter Rothman and Jonathon Feste, a deputy prosecutor at the time. She saw an opportunity to discuss an issue related to a felony judgment and sentence.

“While asking for attendance, Rikki explained, Rothman went into some kind of ‘tirade’ about Zoom,” PCSO Detective Kevin Acdal said in the investigation report. “Rikki described Rothman as waving his hands around using profanity, which confused Rikki because she was unsure why Rothman was so upset. Rikki then said at some point, Rothman dropped his ‘bucket,’ a container of documents.”

Rothman reportedly got onto his hands and knees and pleaded with Thompson for whatever she wanted. She responded by retreating to her office. What followed was partially captured by surveillance footage that is said to show Rothman tailing after her. He allegedly became upset, and she yelled at him to leave her office. When speaking with investigators, she recalled that her “heart was pounding.”

Following the incident, Rothman allegedly called Thompson a “crabs-infested c–t.” Feste was left to clean up the mess, apologizing for Rothman’s behavior. Feste later resigned and issued a letter on Nov. 30, 2024, outlining the reasoning, which pointed specifically at Rothman’s ongoing behavior and that he could no longer “remain silent” about it.

The next incident occurred Oct. 31, 2024, following a county workshop regarding salaries in the prosecutor’s office, in which Huber objected to Rothman’s proposal that deputy prosecutors be paid based on his own hefty salary.

Rothman reportedly went to Huber’s office the following morning, blocking her exit, and confronted her about the comment, allegedly calling her selfish and self-centered. He reportedly insinuated that her objection had screwed him over, and that he would be sure to do the same to the coroner’s office.

“Brandi later explained she didn’t leave because she was afraid,” Acdal stated in the investigation’s report. “Brandi stated she felt safe as long as Rothman remained by the door, but didn’t know what he would do if she tried to leave because he was so angry.”

Huber’s incident was formally reported to Pacific County Human Resources and Risk Manager Marie Guernsey on Nov. 4, 2024. Thompson did not file a report following her incident. She did submit a public records request for surveillance footage and thought the county would investigate — to no avail.

According to public records, Guernsey met with the two women on Nov. 20, 2024, after she returned from a vacation. The meeting was not recorded, and Guernsey took minimal notes, which records show were minor scribblings with names.

Thompson has remained adamant that she handed a formal complaint in writing to Guernsey during the sit-down; however, Guernsey told Acdal and fellow detective Cory Nacnac during an interview that she had no recollection of receiving it.

Alleged repetitive behavior

The criminal investigation into Rothman was launched on Dec. 3, 2024, and was completed earlier this spring. Acdal and Nacnac uncovered multiple reported issues with Rothman. Every former employee of his office they spoke to stated that he was difficult.

The latter issue was also addressed by Vreeland in the tort claim.

“He has exhibited a long-term pattern of such misconduct, and it has become progressively worse without any accountability or correction beginning in early 2022 to mid-2025, and the present,” Vreeland stated in the tort claim. “This behavior has been observed and experienced by numerous employees of Pacific County. He has failed and refused to follow requests from his deputy prosecutors to disengage and correct his behavior; and has failed to follow the directives to date to stay away and not engage with Rikki Thompson, creating more intimidation and fear.”

“Ms. Huber has experienced such hostilities from Mr. Rothman beginning shortly after he returned as the Prosecutor to the Pacific County office in late 2021,” Vreeland stated. “His outbursts were shocking and completely unprofessional. He would fly off the handle and exhibit rage, would quickly spin out of control, and would swear and name-call, raising his voice and shouting. Early on, for example, he became so angry when Ms. Huber was helping him with his telephone that he smashed it repeatedly until he broke it.”

Rothman’s behavior is reportedly not isolated to recent events.

Daniel Crawford, a former chief criminal deputy prosecutor under Rothman, reportedly informed staff about an incident during the covid-19 pandemic in which Rothman was removed from a commercial flight for refusing to wear a mask. Rothman also allegedly spoke of the incident and how the pilot kicked him off. Rothman told his office staff, “I am not going to be told what to do by some little gay flight steward.”

Years prior, when Rothman worked as a deputy prosecutor at the office he now oversees, he was involved in a scuffle with Mark McClain, who was then a chief criminal prosecutor and later became the elected county prosecutor. Rothman reportedly shoved McClain into a wall so hard that it left an indent.

“Mr. Rothman has engaged in a long-term pattern of misconduct — specifically, he has engaged in excessive, violent, abusive, angry, hostile, and enraged outbursts during business hours and in Pacific County buildings and the Prosecuting Attorney’s office,” Vreeland stated in the tort claim. “He has directed his severe, vile, and demeaning outbursts with sarcasm, vitriol, and pejorative name-calling against female staff members of the Pacific County Prosecutor’s Office, particularly Brandi Huber, and the Superior Court Administrator Rikki Thompson.”

County responds; Rothman claps back

The Pacific County Commission issued Rothman a letter two days after the tort claims were filed, dated July 3, in which they informed him of the claim. The letter notes he was not directly named as the defendant.

“The County Commissioners have received two tort claims from employees alleging you have created a hostile work environment and engaged in serious misconduct. At this point, the claims appear to be asserted against the County only, but it is possible that a subsequent lawsuit could name you individually,” the letter stated.

“The Commissioners have reviewed the tort claims as well as our experience with you during your tenure as elected Prosecutor. The Commissioners wish to inform you that in the event you are named as a defendant in future litigation, it is our intent to defend you. However, we are requesting that you immediately tender your resignation.”

The rift between the commissioners and Pacific County General Administration continues to mount following a move by Rothman four days after the letter, on July 7, when he released a letter of his own regarding the recall effort against Commissioner Lisa Olsen, directed to her attorney and the lawyers for the Recall Rangers, the group spearheading the recall effort.

“Attached please find the following declarations that are directly related to the present recall action involving Lisa Olsen,” Rothman stated in the letter. “I am not the attorney of record and am not under a legal obligation to correct the record. I am disclosing these materials to both parties in the interest of justice.”

Attached to the letter are three separate “voluntary statement forms” from Brian Holloway, a former chief civil deputy prosecutor, dated April 11, and two other employees of the prosecutor’s office, each dated May 14. The statement regarding Holloway is written in the third person, while the other two are written in the first person.

According to Holloway’s statement, he stumbled upon a meeting involving the commissioners and other officials and handed Olsen the recall paperwork stating to the effect of “while he did not agree with the petition, he was required to remain neutral and fulfill statutory requirements. He then suggested she retain counsel to represent her.”

The Observer reached out to a retired detective and penmanship expert and provided a copy of Holloway’s statement for review. The expert concluded that it was indeed written in the third person and was written by two different individuals.

The other two statements written by employees note that Holloway approached Olsen during the first recall hearing on April 8 and appeared “upset.” When prompted by the two employees about what was wrong, he said, “She didn’t get legal counsel.”

Olsen has remained adamant that the prosecutor’s office never advised her that she needed to retain counsel — a point of contention in the recall effort.

The three statements released by Rothman were all signed by Nacnac, who has been an adamant supporter of the recall against Olsen, including making a monetary donation to the cause. The question of whether his involvement constituted a conflict of interest was clarified by PCSO Chief Civil Deputy Hollie Billeci.

“The statements you are referring to were collected as part of a criminal investigation that has since been forwarded to another agency and is currently pending,” Billeci said. “Because the matter is still under review, the Sheriff’s Office cannot comment further at this time.”

“No, this is not a conflict of interest. The Smith Affidavit forms used by our office require the signature of the law enforcement officer receiving the statement, but the content of each statement reflects solely the personal account of the individual providing it,” Billeci added.

Billeci did not respond to a subsequent email seeking to clarify which external agency was handling the investigation.

Responding to a request for comment regarding the tort claims and the letter requesting his resignation, he replied after the Observer’s print deadline, “I will continue to serve the people of Pacific County.”