A California State Bar judge is recommending the disbarment of John Eastman, former attorney to President Donald Trump, for his involvement in alleged misconduct stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Eastman's attorneys filed a motion to stay the court's order on April 3.
The judge, Yvette Roland, has agreed that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) of the State Bar has met the burden of proof in proving 10 charges against Eastman.
“In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman’s misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred,” Judge Yvette Roland said in an March 27 opinion.
The 10 charges include one count of failing to support the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, two counts of attempting to mislead a court in his filings, multiple counts of moral turpitude under the California Business & Professions Code.
Because the judge's recommendation involved disbarment, the state Supreme Court will make the ultimate decision on Eastman's fate.
The State Bar Court's hearing on the Eastman case began last summer and involved 23 witnesses and more than 700 exhibits, according to the State Bar. Roland found that sufficient evidence had been presented to show Eastman failed to abide by his ethical and legal obligations as an attorney when he allegedly moved to "conspire with then-President Donald Trump" to formulate a legal strategy to obstruct the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, when "there was no good-faith theory or argument to lawfully reject electoral votes of any state," according to the State Bar.
"Eastman’s wrongdoing was committed directly in the course and scope of his representation of President Trump and the Trump campaign," Roland said. "This is an important factor, as it constitutes a fundamental breach of an attorney’s core ethical duties."
Eastman is one of the defendants named in a wide-ranging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) filing in Georgia’s Fulton County, where he faces felony charges in connection with the alleged plan to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Eastman’s motion for a stay of the State Bar Court’s order, which was filed by Miller Law Associates APC, argues that placing Eastman on inactive legal status would be highly prejudicial to his current clients.
“... If the order placing Dr. Eastman on inactive enrollment were not stayed, Dr. Eastman would lose his ability to make a living as an attorney at a time when other matters arising out of his representation of the former president of the United States, including an unprecedented criminal racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations action in Fulton County, Georgia, have already caused him to incur more than $1 million in legal fees, with estimates that he will incur as much as $3 million or more before the matters have run their course,” the Eastman motion states.
The motion also stresses that Eastman, an attorney who specializes on constitutional law issues, poses no harm to the public.
“Since Dr. Eastman’s conduct at issue was uniquely situational, and because of the fact that he is no longer counsel to former President Trump, there is no possibility of any threat, let alone a substantial one, of harm to the interests of Dr. Eastman’s clients to the public,” the motion says.
A statement from Miller Law Associates that was emailed to the Southern California Record emphasizes that attorneys are required to be zealous advocates for their clients.
“Dr. Eastman maintains that his handling of the legal issues he was asked to assess after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent, prior presidential elections, research of constitutional text and extensive scholarly material,” the statement says. “The process undertaken by Dr. Eastman in 2020 is the same process taken by lawyers every day and everywhere – indeed, that is the essence of what lawyers do.”
Because Eastman hasn't been convicted of any crimes, he's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, according to the statement.
“Any reasonable person can see the inherent unfairness of prohibiting a presumed-innocent defendant from being able to earn the funds needed to pay for the enormous expenses required to defend himself, in the profession in which he has long been licensed,” the statement continues. “That is not justice and serves no legitimate purpose to protect the public.”
Eastman may or may not have further comment once the court determines whether or not to stay the ruling making him unable to practice law.
“We’ll await the court ruling, and may or may not have comments at that point,” one of Eastman’s attorneys, Randall Miller, told the Record in an email.