Lying to Protect the President Is Still Lying, and That's Wrong
There is no possibility that U.S. Sens. Kennedy and Cornyn do not know the Ukraine story is fabricated. In repeating that story in defense of the president, these senators, both attorneys, are publicly repeating a lie.
December 10, 2019 at 04:31 PM
4 minute read
On the day we become attorneys in Connecticut, we take the following oath:
[I] solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that [I] will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that [I] will inform the court of any dishonesty of which [I] have knowledge; that [I] will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that [I] will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that [I] will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which [I] may practice, according to the best of [my] learning and judgment, faithfully, to both [my] client and the court; so help [me] God or upon penalty of perjury.
While we rarely, if ever, consider those words thereafter, it is for the sake of this oath that we are compelled to speak against the statements being employed by attorneys in defense of the president. We take no position on the specific question of whether the president should be impeached or convicted in an impeachment trial.
The facts uncovered during the impeachment inquiry have been widely reported, and we will not repeat them here. But we must condemn in the strongest possible terms the statements by U.S. Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas, both attorneys, who have publicly and repeatedly propounded the widely debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
This theory is false. Not only is it false, it is well known to be false. American intelligence services have determined unequivocally that the allegation is Russian propaganda, conceived by Russian security services to deflect guilt away from Russia's own efforts to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. In Congress, senators received classified briefings on Russian efforts to pin the blame on Ukraine this fall and previously received classified briefings on Russia's efforts to manipulate the 2016 election. Indeed, the House Intelligence Committee last year released a report detailing Russia's efforts in the election, and it is widely expected that Russia will continue these efforts in the 2020 elections. There is no possibility that Kennedy and Cornyn do not know the Ukraine story is fabricated. In repeating that story in defense of the president, these senators are publicly repeating a lie.
All lawyer jokes aside, being an attorney is a privilege, not a right, one that comes with solemn duties that must be honored. The first line of our oath places honesty foremost among those responsibilities. Honesty is so important to the integrity of our profession that it has not one but many rules in our Rules of Professional Conduct, including:
- Rule 8.4(3): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
- Rule 3.3: A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law [to the Court].
- Rule 4.1(1): In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.
This is not a political issue. It is fundamental to our profession and the conduct expected of us, and we do ourselves and our profession a disservice by turning a blind eye to this type of conduct or dismissing it as politics. Whatever our political affiliations may be, we cannot countenance the flagrant disregard for the truth for mere political gain. To the extent attorneys perpetuate known falsehoods, they should be held accountable. The failure for us to hold each other to the high standards required of attorneys tarnishes the profession.
To be clear, we are not suggesting nor do we believe that Kennedy and Cornyn should have grievances filed against them. While they have engaged in improper conduct, we hope that was a mistake, the result of them being caught up in the moment. Instead, we urge them to retract their statements regarding Ukraine and to encourage their colleagues to stop spreading false information. Trump is entitled to a defense, but attorneys should not be spreading known untruths as part of it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 2Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 3Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 4Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 5'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250