Election Deniers Hearing
The District of Columbia bar disciplinary hearing involving charges against three attorneys for election-denying litigation is scheduled to begin today.
The hearing can only be viewed in real time at this link.
The complaints are linked here (Julia Z. Haller and Brandon Johnson) and here (Lawrence J. Joseph).
Without commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the positions taken by the Respondent attorneys, I will say that they have filed an avalance of motions and demands that (save for perhaps their spiritual cousin Jeffrey Clark) have no parallel in the 50 year history of D.C. bar discipline.
When I spent 18 years prosecuting bar disciplinary cases in D.C., I was accustomed to the slings and arrows sent my way by those I had accused of misappropriation, dishonesty, neglect, litigation misconduct, criminal conduct and the like as the usual fare that comes with the job.
Giuliani, Clark and these three Respondents are most definitely not the usual fare.
When one is granted the privilege of a District of Columbia law license, one has agreed to abide by the ethics rules adopted by the court and accepted the court’s jurisdiction to impose a sanction for rule violations.
Rule XI, Section 1. Jurisdiction
(a) Persons subject to disciplinary jurisdiction. All members of the District of Columbia Bar, all persons appearing or participating pro hac vice in any proceeding in accordance with Rule 49(c)(1) of the General Rules of this Court, all persons licensed by this Court Special Legal Consultants under Rule 46(c)(4), all new and visiting clinical professors providing services pursuant to Rule 48(c)(4), and all persons who have been suspended or disbarred by this Court are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court and its Board on Professional Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”)…
Rule XI, Section 2. Grounds for Discipline
(a) Duty of attorneys. The license to practice law in the District of Columbia is a continuing proclamation by this Court that the holder is fit to be entrusted with professional and judicial matters, and to aid in the administration of justice as an attorney and an officer of the Court. It is the duty of every recipient of that privilege at all times and in all conduct, both professional and personal, to conform to the standards imposed upon members of the Bar as conditions for the privilege to practice law.
(b) Misconduct. Acts or omissions by an attorney, individually or in concert with any other person or persons, which violate the attorney’s oath of office or the rules or code of professional conduct currently in effect in the District of Columbia shall constitute misconduct and shall be grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney- client relationship.
It’s part of something called the rule of law.
I applaud the efforts of those bar prosecutors who have undertaken these cases in the face of persistent and unyielding accusations and attacks. (Mike Frisch)