Friday, May 31, 2024
D.C. Board Recommends Disbarment For Giuliani
The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended disbarment for Rudy Giuliani
An Ad Hoc Hearing Committee concluded that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules” or “Pennsylvania Rules”) 3.1 and 8.4(d), arising out of arguments he made in a Pennsylvania federal lawsuit following the 2020 presidential election. In that lawsuit, Respondent alleged that seven “Democraticmajority controlled” county boards of elections “blatantly violated the protections and procedures, including those enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, vitally necessary to ensure that the votes of the citizens of Pennsylvania are not illegally diluted by invalid ballots and that the election is free and fair.” DCX 09 at 0013.
He further alleged that the county boards of elections “stuff[ed] the ballot box” with illegal Biden votes. Id. at 0080. Among other relief, Respondent requested that the federal district court declare the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania “defective” and permit the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose Pennsylvania’s electors. Id. at 0123. Alternatively, Respondent requested that the court enjoin election certification on a Commonwealth-wide basis, or enjoin election certification that included ballots canvassed without observation and/or ballots that were allowed to be cured under local “Notice and Cure” procedures in those counties. See id.; DCX 05 at 0084; DCX 06 at 0149.
In that federal lawsuit, Respondent focused his arguments on two types of allegedly “illegal” mail-in ballots: (1) those ballots where voters were notified of and allowed to cure defects that would have otherwise prevented the ballots from being counted (“the Notice and Cure claims”); and, (2) those ballots that were canvassed without close supervision by partisan observers (“the Observational Barrier claims”).
The Hearing Committee concluded that the Notice and Cure claims themselves were not frivolous because they alleged that different counties treated defective ballots differently (some allowed them to be cured, and some did not). However, the Hearing Committee concluded that Respondent did not have a faint hope of success that the Notice and Cure claims would support the most extreme requested relief, enjoining certification of the election results, because there were not enough cured ballots to change the election results even if all of the cured ballots were deemed to be Biden ballots.
The Hearing Committee concluded that the Observational Barrier claims were frivolous because no facts supported the claim that there was a scheme to illegally inflate Biden votes, or even that any illegal mail-in votes were counted. The Hearing Committee concluded that the Observational Barrier claims were “premised on a conclusive presumption of irregularity, i.e., the wholly unfounded supposition that observational boundaries necessarily led to fraudulent counting of mail-in ballots to favor President Biden.”
The Hearing Committee concluded that Respondent’s frivolous arguments sought to disenfranchise Pennsylvania voters, and were part of an effort to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election that “has helped destabilize our democracy.” The Hearing Committee recommended that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent takes exception to the Hearing Committee’s recommendations, arguing that he did not engage in misconduct, and that even if the Board concludes that he violated the Rules, he should not be disbarred after considering his career of public service and the sanctions imposed in other frivolous litigation cases. Disciplinary Counsel supports the Hearing Committee’s recommendations.
We reject Respondent’s invitation to reweigh the evidence that was presented to the Hearing Committee because the “weight, value and effect of the evidence” is for the Hearing Committee to decide. In re Johnson, 298 A.3d 294, 310 (D.C. 2023) (quoting In re Temple, 629 A.2d 1203, 1208 (D.C. 1993)); In re Speights, 173 A.3d 96, 102 (D.C. 2017) (per curiam) (weight of the relevant evidence is “within the ambit of the Hearing Committee’s discretion”); Board Rule 11.3 (“[T]he Hearing Committee shall determine the weight and significance to be accorded all items of evidence upon which it relies.”). Instead, we “must accept the Hearing Committee’s evidentiary findings, including credibility findings, if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record,” In re Johnson, 275 A.3d 268, 275 (D.C. 2022)
(per curiam), “even though there may also be substantial evidence in the record to support a contrary finding.” In re Godette, 919 A.2d 1157, 1163 (D.C. 2007). Substantial evidence in turn “means enough evidence for a reasonable mind to find sufficient to support the conclusion reached.” In re Thompson, 583 A.2d 1006, 1008 (D.C. 1990) (per curiam).
Having carefully reviewed the record, including all of the evidence that Respondent offered to support the claims made in the Pennsylvania litigation, we adopt the Hearing Committee’s factual findings because they are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Board Rule 13.7. We summarize those findings below and where we have made additional findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence, we have included citations to the record. Id.
Conclusion
the Board concludes that Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d), and we recommend that he be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. We further recommend that Respondent’s attention be directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement.
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2024/05/dc-board-recommends-disbarment-for-giuliani.html