Explainer: Can Trump's lawyers be disciplined for making false claims? | Reuters
In the weeks since U.S. President Donald Trump lost the election, his lead lawyer Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly made baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and the campaign brought a flurry of lawsuits challenging the results, many of which were dismissed.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(Reuters) - In the weeks since U.S. President Donald Trump lost the election, his lead lawyer Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly made baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and the campaign brought a flurry of lawsuits challenging the results, many of which were dismissed.
Representative Bill Pascrell, a Democrat, on Friday called for Giuliani and other members of the legal team to be stripped of their law licenses for bringing "frivolous" lawsuits and allegedly attempting to help Republican Trump steal the Nov. 3 vote from President-elect Joe Biden.
But legal ethics experts say attorney discipline is relatively rare, especially in politically charged disputes.
Here's why Trump's lawyers are very unlikely to face disbarment, suspension, or even lighter sanctions such as a fine.
BAN ON DECEITFUL CONDUCT
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have legal ethics rules for lawyers that are derived from standards published by the American Bar Association.
One ABA rule says that lawyers should only assert a claim in court if "there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous."
Separately, there are rules prohibiting lawyers from making false statements to third parties and engaging in deceitful conduct.
Judges can punish lawyers who violate ethics rules in a particular case by ordering them to pay the winning party's legal fees.
…
visit seeded article for remaining content
Tags
Who is online
464 visitors
As an engineer I find the word salad that creates the balance between ethical/moral vs. legal in the judicial system something that gives me hives, but I found this statement interesting.
"Lawyers definitely have a lot more leeway in press conferences, but they still cannot engage in deceit in their statements," said Keith Swisher, an ethics law professor at the University of Arizona.
Now apply that to the preponderance of our elected officials whom are lawyers themselves.
I sympathize. I'm an environmental scientist who works closely with lawyers. The legalese I have to deal with nearly everyday is confusing and designed to scare the shit out of people.
I have lawyers in my family. that job would turn me into a serial killer/mass murderer in less than a month.
In Henry VIII, Part 2, Shakespeare wrote "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." I've recently noticed that T-shirts are sold with that quotation. If I'd known that when I was in Canada I would have worn one often.
I also have a Masters degree in environmental science and have fought the fossil fuel industry lawyers for many years now. Obama appointed my environmental law professor to head district 7 EPA back in the day and I just went along for the ride. We fought the good fight.
Under Trump, the EPA works for polluters and not the environment.
Hopefully Biden will fix that ASAP!
Although I'm sure it isn't relevant in the USA, I recall reading about a case in Canada where a lawyer representing a client appealed to a higher court a trivial case that was thrown out at its first hearing because it was trivial, and the appeal court brought judgment against the lawyer himself, requiring him to pay all the court costs and costs and fees of the other side of the case for both the original case and the appeal personally forthwith. It was a good lesson to lawyers in Canada to not bring frivolous lawsuits.
Sure. If they knowingly make false claims. Good look proving it. No one is going to go to the trouble.
Keep in mind, there is a difference between making a claim based on little evidence or a disagreement on the law, and making a claim you know to be false.
If they're in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 prohibits attorneys from bringing claims they know to be total bullshit. They must expect to eventually show some kind of evidence for the claims - that kind of thing. But this evidence can be feeble and Rule 11 sanctions aren't necessarily an easy thing to get.
The judge can sanction plaintiffs on his/her own initiative, but I wouldn't expect it.
In spite of what the press might have us believe, legal cases attacking myriad aspects of an election - even seemingly petty ones - are extremely common. Just because the court finds against the plaintiff (including dismissing it with prejudice), that doesn't mean a sanction is in order.
Just asking this question is another sign of how toxic and spiteful politics is. Somebody wants to see the opposition punished for putting up a fight.
I want to see Trump prosecuted for his ongoing criminal conspiracy.
Maybe you can get Mueller to file charges!
I can think of nothing more toxic and divisive for the country than prosecuting someone who just got almost 74 million votes for president.
“I can think of nothing more toxic and divisive for the country than prosecuting someone who just got almost 74 million votes for president.”
while calling for unity at the same time.
I don't know. Biden may be the lone voice in the wilderness on that one.
The reason the claims filed in court filings largely don't match the arguments being made on cable news, and why many cases have been repeatedly amended, is precisely because lawyers don't want to be on record knowingly presenting a fallacious argument in court. It's also the reason most serious lawyers have been avoiding these cases - leaving it to the likes of Giuliani who hadn't been in a court room in thirty years.
Enlightening seed. Thanks.