This is some news for Squidney from a couple of weeks ago.
I expect that’s just another step in the consequences for her.
Same. As an aside, is disbarment normally a multiple-year process?
I think it usually is, yes.
My own experience is limited to observing from afar state bar sanctions against a very few attorneys for somewhat less serious offenses (filching from a trust account or suffering a drunk driving conviction, e.g.), and those don’t usually take as long because they were generally tied to a single event. Proceedings always happened first, meaning criminal trials to determine guilt or innocence to establish the underlying facts.
In cases like Giuliani’s and Powell’s, there are likewise predicate facts that had to be established before their bar licenses could be reviewed, such as whether actual evidence existed for their assertions of massive election fraud. There were many instances where hearings on this evidence had to take place first (the 60-ish hearings to determine if widespread election fraud occurred). It took time, even though any reasonable person long ago concluded that this evidence didn’t exist.
Because revoking a bar license means basically taking away someone’s livelihood, I can see why some reviews take time. Unfortunately in this instance, the damage done far exceeds any concerns over how these awful people will support themselves after they lose their privileges to practice.
When all is said and done, my hope is that losing their licenses to practice will be the least of their concerns.
Well, truth be told, it has been years… 2 of them, but still… since the acts in question.
I agree with @Aspenglow 's summary. It’s also complicated here by the nature of the allegations. The lawyers in question are saying that they shouldn’t be disbarred for advocating an unusual legal position. That’s quite different from stealing from a client or being convicted of a separate criminal offence.
Representing an unpopular client, or taking an unpopular legal position, go to the heart of what lawyers are to do.
We are expected to represent an unpopular client; in some cases we have a professional obligation to do so.
We are expected to consider unpopular or unorthodox legal arguments; in some cases we may have a professional obligation to do so.
These cases are highly unusual, in light of that defence. The disciplinary bodies have to review it all extremely carefully, to ensure that those defences don’t hold water, because we don’t want to undercut those key roles of lawyers.
We want lawyers to represent individuals regardless of race, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, even if there are portions of society who don’t approve.
We want lawyers to be willing to take unpopular positions, such as arguing in the mid-1950s that racially segregated schools are unconstitutional. That’s part of the professional duties of lawyers: to take the unpopular client and to make unpopular legal arguments.
Given that defence, which relies on the core function of the legal provision, it will take time to review all the evidence. That is especially true in Guiliani’s case, given the number of applications he was involved with, after the election. The discipline investigators have to look at each one, and assess them carefully; not on whether Guiliani was successful in any of them (narrator: he wasn’t), but on whether he had a reasonable basis for the positions he took, in the context of the facts and the applicable state law.
That’s a complicated process, in light of the number of applications and the different state laws that applied, let alone the constitutional law issues.
Proving a negative is not an easy process, but that’s what the disciplinary investigators had to do: they had to inquire and decide if there was no reasonable basis for Guiliani’s applications, far beyond the issue of whether he succeeded in any of the applications.
Thanks, I missed that one when I was poking around.
(Narrator: he didn’t)
I agree. Here’s the relevant rule (Washington State)
RPC 3.1
MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein,
unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good
faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the
defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in
incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the
case be established.
Rudy crossed that line, IMO
I agree, but I’m just a guy on the internet who reads the news.
Discipline committees take a lot longer; they have to.
I’ve watched at least one Pence campaign ad and to his minor credit, he does mention the Capitol attack in a negative light. The rest of them either don’t or talk about pardons.
If the client demands that the lawyer press a ridiculous claim, is the lawyer allowed to drop the client? Rudy may try to say he was just following orders. But I suspect that that does not cut the mustard.
Correct. You have no ethical obligation to continue to represent a client who insists you put forward a case that you know, or ought to know, is spurious. Indeed, you should walk away.
And disciplinary proceedings can indeed take years. Disbarment is a form of career death. It’s very serious, and you have to take the time to do it right. It recently took almost three years for the Ohio disciplinary process to force a terrible muni judge from the bench, and the case against her was very clear from the outset.
Thank you for the explainer. It’s very helpful. But, where does a lawyer’s actions cross the line from representing an unpopular position to breaking laws? Sure, Rudy can claim he was just following orders from his client, but he was pushing lies. Lies he knew were lies. I have a hard time believing Rudy thought the spurious stolen election lies had any evidence. At least a lawyer is supposed to validate the client’s claims, right? Disbarrment for incompetence, probably not. But had those lies worked for some reason, an overturned election based on lies seems a lot more serious, and that almost happened with the role Rudy played. He had to know the whole thing was untrue at some point, but he kept pressing ahead, using his reputation and legal standing to do so. Did he break any laws doing so? I dunno, but it sure seems like it. We’ll see.
That’s exactly what the discipline investigators had to consider. Was there evidence that Rudy knew he was lying? The fact that in one of the Pennsylvania cases, outside of court he was going on about a fraudulent election, but insider the court he denied any allegation of a fraudulent election, certainly supports the conclusion of lying.
The bar investigators have to sift each one of the cases he was involved in, to see if there was knowledge, or a pattern, that showed he knew he was lying. That takes time and assessments of credibility.
On reread I see that my wording was ambiguous. I was asking: “This took years. Is that normal?”
The answers make it clear that yes, this is normal. Which makes me happy. In this one narrow instance I feel like all is right with the world.
I watched that hearing, it was publicly available on Zoom.
The issue wasn’t that they were advocating for an unpopular opinion or making highly unusual arguments. IIRC, most of the hearing had to do with affidavits and documents that they had submitted as evidence without performing any due diligence on the contents, material that was deeply flawed bullshit.
This hearing happened a long time ago, but I remember the judge spending lots of time grilling the lawyers over a particular affidavit which claimed someone had seen two people hand off a bag to a mail carrier, and this random person swore that it looked like the mail carrier was waiting for them, also that the two people looked happy.
The judge really wanted an explanation of what that had to do with proving election fraud.
There was, I believe, also an affidavit from someone that had been told by a third party that they had overheard their supervisor discussing something that might have been about ballots, leading Sidney Powell to claim with a straight face “that’s not hearsay, it’s a sworn affidavit”.
There was also a lot of time spent on the various lawyers trying to minimize or disavow their participation, throwing each other under the bus. It was an amusing event.
For the sake of accuracy, that was a different lawyer, named Mark “Thor” Hearne.
In fact, you can see it happen here.
Reminds me of Charlie Brown: “Why, it’s a signed document!” 
Makes no difference to Lucy with the football… or a (rightfully) skeptical judge.