As some of you may recall, on January 5, 2021, I filed a number of disciplinary complaints against attorneys involved in the so-called “election fraud” litigation. Although I wasn’t sure what would happen—mainly because I have faltering faith that the “system” (especially one that is already corrupt) is able to withstand the current evil that is arrayed against it—I also believed that doing nothing was not the right answer. Consistent with my expectations, the complaints were dismissed in the first round.
The District of Columbia Bar took the position that (1) no one who was not a “client” had standing to file a complaint, and (2) it would not involve itself in issues that it deemed were purely “political.” I did not pursue complaints against the D.C. attorneys, but a group called Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD—more on them later) is challenging these assumptions.
I did however, pursue appeals in the Texas cases. Complaints against Louis Gohmert (who appeared as a Plaintiff along with Arizona alleged “electors” in the suit against Mike Pence) were dismissed on appeal—even though they are part and parcel of the same fraudulent grand scheme to overturn a valid election. The case involving Ken Paxton and his first associate (where the State of Texas sued four other states) was accepted for investigation.
On January 5th of this year, there was a hearing, but since I had little to add other than what was already on record, my own participation was minimal. Someone on the committee also had us take an oath of confidentiality. So…I was unable to report anything even if there had been something to report. I heard nothing from the State Bar of Texas until recently. However, some kind of deadline passed in March, and most of us who had filed complaints believed that something was afoot. I received a couple of media contacts, but did not respond—because frankly I didn’t know anything for sure.
According to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, an attorney who receives notice that the Bar is pursuing disciplinary action can choose whether to have a hearing in district court “of proper venue, with or without a jury” (which now becomes a matter of public record), or a hearing by a Disciplinary Committee Evidentiary Panel. The Committee who conducts this hearing is comprised of different individuals than the Committee who determined a disciplinary violation has occurred. Texas has certainly designed its procedures to be as “fair” to attorneys as possible.
Every one of the Texas attorneys (including Sidney Powell) has chosen to have their hearing in a District Court in their home county. Paxton strategically kept his legal “home” in Collin County (McKinney) rather than Austin. They are likely presuming there will be a favorable hometown advantage. However, the presiding judge is required to appoint a judge from outside the District. As a practical matter, this is Texas. Any Judge presiding over these hearings is more than likely going to be a Republican. One benefit of this is that it will negate the usual howling and shrieking about this being a partisan witch hunt. However, the salient question for the integrity of the factfinder in these cases (whether judge or jury) is not so much political affiliation but whether or not they believe the Big Lie. The burden of proof in these cases is the standard civil preponderance of the evidence. These cases can also be appealed—all the way up to the Supreme Court if they otherwise qualify. So….don’t expect to have final results anytime soon.
The case against Warren “Ken” Paxton was filed in Collin County on May 25th. Although there were over 80 complaints filed initially, only four of us plus the LDAD complaint made it through the somewhat byzantine process. All of us alleged a number of violations, to include knowing false statements of fact and the filing of frivolous cases (which the Bar says it frowns on because this could have a chilling effect on the creative evolution of the law—a point which under “normal” circumstances makes sense). However, the Disciplinary Committee settled on a single violation: Rule 8.04(a)(3)—A lawyer shall not engage in the conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
The Disciplinary Committee found that representations were dishonest because “they were not supported by any charge, indictment, judicial finding, and/or credible or admissible evidence, and failed to disclose to the Court that some of [the] representations and allegations had already been adjudicated and/or dismissed in a court of law.” The complaint also mentions the fact that “Defendant States were required to expend time, money, and resources to respond to the misrepresentations and false statements contained in these pleadings.” So…it looks like there is potential for financial penalties. The complaint against Brent Webster (Paxton’s First Assistant AG—who was hired in October 2020 after a group of whistleblowers left the AG’s office) was filed May 6th in Williamson County—a purple “edge” county that includes parts of Austin. The Webster complaint is nearly identical to the complaint against Paxton, except here I am the only listed complainant.
I then searched to check the status of other bar complaints. God Bless Texas, who has also filed a disciplinary complaint against Sidney Powell in Dallas County on March 1st. A total of ten complainants are listed here, including Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Here the charges include knowing false statement of material fact or law, offer of evidence the lawyer knows to be false, taking a position that creates unreasonable costs or delay, and Rule 8.04(a)(3) (same as in the Paxton cases).
In the course of pursuing the Paxton complaint, I connected with a group called Lawyers Defending American Democracy. LDAD is a non-partisan, mostly volunteer group of lawyers that includes several former Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, State Bar Disciplinary officials, and academics in legal ethics. In addition to a later-filed complaint against Ken Paxton, LDAD has also filed complaints against John Eastman (California), Jeffrey Clark (D.C), and William Barr (D.C). LDAD is spearheading the argument at the D.C. Bar that if they refuse to consider “political” cases, it will result in failure to prevent a lot of ethical abuses (as we have seen).
A lawyers group that is similar to LDAD is The 65 Project. The 65 project takes its name from the number of lawsuits Trump and his co-conspirators filed to overturn the election.
The 65 project came to my attention because on May 18, 2022, they filed a complaint with the State Bar of Texas against Rafael “Ted” Cruz for representing TFG Trump when Trump intervened in the Paxton suit. The objective of the 65 Project appears to be broader than bar disciplinary sanctions, but rather to make these individuals “toxic.” They are also expanding bar disciplinary complaints beyond attorneys involved in “election fraud” litigation, to include attorneys who were present at the January 6th insurrection and attorneys who fraudulently tried to pass themselves off as state electors.
In addition to its own complaints, the 65 Project has posted replies to the perps’ responses. Apparently, at least one of them accused the 65 Project of being part of a “leftist authoritarian regime,” a “communist,” and an advocate of indoctrinating grade schoolers in Communism or grooming them for pedophilia. This seems to come from the standard RWNJ defensive playbook. Which leads me to ask if a response to a bar complaint itself contains lies, does this constitute a new and additional charge? Responses to other complaints “Failed entirely to address the substance of the Grievance.” Which is pretty much what Paxton and Webster did. Why are we not surprised?
While some of the “election fraud” attorneys have received judicial sanctions—the most notable being Judge Linda Parker’s sanctions against Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood—none of these bar complaints has made it through to a final decision yet.
The most aggressive disciplinary “action” so far has been the suspension of Rudy Giuliani’s license to practice law on June 24, 2021 by a New York Appeals court, with the D.C. Court of Appeals following suit on July 7, 2021.
A judge in Georgia has ruled that L. Lin Wood must submit to a mental health exam connected with an investigation by the State Bar of Georgia. Wood is also under investigation by election authorities in Georgia, who are questioning whether he was a legal resident of the state when he voted there in 2020. But—like with Giuliani—the bar disciplinary complaint itself is still pending.
Like the January 6th Committee, it is taking time for these cases to be resolved—and they will likely be dragged out and delayed even more by the malfeasants. It has given me some modicum of hope that lawyers are taking the threat to the system by those among their own ranks seriously and have committed to doing something about it. And even Texas—Texas!—appears to be losing patience with the level of corruption within its own borders. The outcome remains to be seen….