Counsel Disqualified In Dominion Defamation Suit

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya) has disqualified defendant's counsel in a defamation action brought by Dominion  for alleged false statements concerning the 2020 election based on her violation of court orders

From June 2023 until March 2024, all counsel and Parties in the case (including Byrne) seemingly abided by the Amended Protective Order (“Protective Order”) governing discovery. ECF No. 46. Before even her first appearance in this case on March 12, 2024, however, Byrne’s new counsel, Stefanie Junttila [Lambert] (“Lambert”), began openly violating orders, including by disseminating protected discovery material. ECF Nos. 71; 75; 82; 102; 108; 113. Due to Lambert’s actions, thousands of documents (“Dominion’s Litigation Documents”) which all Parties, including Byrne himself, had agreed to keep confidential, have now been shared widely in the public domain. Lambert and Byrne continue to evade the Protective Order and this Court’s March 19, 2024 Order (“Status Quo Order”) that prohibits further dissemination until resolution of this Motion.

Remedy

The remedy Dominion seeks, Lambert’s disqualification from serving as Byrne’s counsel in this case, is extraordinary and rarely granted outside of cases involving conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, the record clearly shows that Lambert deliberately violated multiple court rules and orders and continues to do so despite having had ample warning of the consequences and assuring the Court she would comply. Lambert’s repeated misconduct raises the serious concern that she became involved in this litigation for the sheer purpose of gaining access to and publicly sharing Dominion’s protected discovery. Because Lambert’s “truly egregious misconduct” has already and will undoubtedly continue to “infect future proceedings,” this is the rare case in which disqualification is warranted.

Specifics

At the March Hearing, Lambert did not dispute that she: 1) signed an Undertaking verifying that she would comply with the Protective Order; 2) gained access to Dominion’s Litigation Documents; and 3) disseminated those documents in the manner Dominion alleged. ECF No. 78 at 18:1–15, 19:8–25:18. She also disclosed details about the scope of her alleged breach for the first time. Id. at 31:19–32:4. She reported that she not only gave Leaf documents, but that she also gave him a username and password to the entire repository of Dominion’s Litigation Documents. Id. Lambert did not represent that she asked Leaf to sign an Undertaking pursuant to the Protective Order.

After Leaf gained access to Dominion’s Litigation Documents, Leaf created an X (formerly Twitter) account and shared links so that the public could download the documents. ECF No. 82 at 6–7. Leaf’s posts sharing the documents remain publicly available.

A second hearing in May

On May 16, 2024, the Court held a hearing to entertain more fulsome argument on Dominion’s Motion, which had not been fully briefed at the time of the March Hearing. At the May Hearing, Dominion chronicled Lambert and Byrne’s actions and argued that Lambert’s actions violated the Protective and Status Quo Orders and her ethical obligations as Byrne’s counsel. ECF No. 102. This included a detailed presentation in which Dominion offered a timeline of Lambert and Byrne’s misconduct using social media posts, interviews and other statements. Id.10

Although Lambert disagreed about Dominion’s characterizations of these actions, she did not dispute either the underlying conduct or the authenticity of any of the documents Dominion cited in its presentation. ECF No. 103 at 33:10–35:24.

After that hearing

Despite assuring the Court that they understood and would comply with all of its orders, Lambert and Byrne continued to disregard them.

Impact

Because of Lambert and Byrne’s actions, Dominion’s Litigation Documents are now widely available to the public. As Dominion points out, the documents and related commentary have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times...

Lambert and Byrne’s actions have led to serious threats to Dominion and its employees. For example, a Dominion employee in Belgrade was “doxed” in a video posted to X which Byrne retweeted. ECF No. 82 at 16–17 (citing ECF No. 82-10). Another Dominion employee’s work address in Denver was posted online after being pulled from the leaked documents. Id. at 17.

The court found multiple violations of governing ethics rules and rejected counsel's justifications

Dominion has raised a plausible narrative that Lambert became involved in this litigation so that she could gain access to Dominion’s documents and use them for improper purposes. ECF No. 75 at 3, 21–22. After thoroughly reviewing Lambert’s conduct, responses, and representations to this Court, the Court does not disagree. It is undisputed that Lambert entered the case without giving notice for months, gained access to Dominion’s documents, shared the documents with Leaf and used them in her own criminal case while hiding these actions from even McGlinchey, all before she entered her formal appearance. Lambert has failed at every opportunity to show the Court that she will act in accordance with its rules and requirements.

Lambert’s conduct in the past few weeks continues to exacerbate this concern. At best, Lambert failed to inform the Court and Dominion that Case, another attorney, had access to Dominion’s Litigation Documents and, at some point, became involved in this litigation. ECF No. 113. This failure is severe, as the Court clearly and repeatedly prohibited Lambert from sharing Dominion’s Litigation Documents with anyone else, and at the very least required her to inform the Court if anyone else gained access to the documents. But even more troubling, Dominion has put forth another plausible narrative that Lambert and Case have orchestrated a series of new moves to disseminate Dominion’s Litigation Documents and other discovery publicly in contravention of this Court’s orders. ECF Nos. 108; 113. According to Dominion, Lambert has clearly enabled Case to access Dominion’s Litigation Documents and Case seeks to use the documents outside this litigation. ECF Nos. 113 at 3–7; 113-4 at 3. But even more concerningly, Lambert and Case now seek to publicly release Poulos’ deposition—which is not yet, as far as the Court is aware, publicly available. ECF Nos. 108 at 2–10; 113 at 3–7; 116 at 25. Dominion’s well-founded concern about Lambert’s continued involvement in this litigation was that she would find other ways to circumvent Court orders. It now appears that is exactly what she has done. Lambert has no response to this theory. ECF Nos. 111, 117.

Also

Lambert currently faces two sets of felony criminal charges in Michigan for allegedly attempting to interfere with voting equipment. On August 3, 2023, Lambert was indicted in Muskegon County, Michigan on four felony charges related to alleged tampering with voting systems following the 2020 U.S. election. ECF Nos. 75 at 14, 75-17, 75-18. Then, on May 8, 2024, Lambert and her client, Stephanie Scott, a clerk in Adams Township, Michigan, were indicted on felony charges related to allegedly “mishandling voter data without authorization in search of fraud.”