Trump Lawyers' Case a 'Historic and Profound Abuse of the Judicial Process'
Despite the chaos and confusion that Trump's lawyers attempted to create by filing their lawsuit, these lawyers have finally been held accountable for their abuse of the judicial process.
August 31, 2021 at 10:25 AM
8 minute read
That is the conclusion of U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker in her 110-page decision last week imposing sanctions on nine lawyers for attempting to deceive the court and the public into believing that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and that for that reason, 5.5 million Michigan voters should be disenfranchised. After a lengthy hearing, Judge Parker sanctioned the nine lawyers—Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood, Emily Newman, Julia Z. Haller, Brandon Johnson, Scott Hagerstrom, Howard Kleinhendler, Gregory Rohl and Stephanie Lynn Juntila—for abusing the judicial process. Judge Parker found that the attorneys brought the election lawsuit in bad faith, advanced claims that they knew or should have known were false, and failed to make diligent efforts to determine whether their allegations had merit. "This case was never about fraud," Judge Parker wrote. "It was about undermining the People's faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so."
For their professional misconduct, Judge Parker ordered the lawyers to pay the reasonable costs and fees incurred by their adversaries to defend the action and to take mandatory continuing legal education classes on pleading standards and election law, and referred the lawyers to the appropriate disciplinary authorities for possible suspension or disbarment.
The lawyers' 900-page complaint contained affidavits of witnesses, bizarre statistical data from purported experts, and hundreds of cut-and-pasted exhibits from other previously litigated cases with essentially the same claims. But despite the ponderous pleadings, the allegations of fraud and manipulation of votes lacked evidence. As Judge Parker observed, the allegations "were based on nothing more than belief, conjecture, and speculation rather than fact." Judge Parker noted that although individuals have a constitutional right to disseminate false information in the public sphere, attorneys engaged in litigation do not have the same privilege. In the context of courtroom proceedings, "an attorney retains no personal First Amendment rights," citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1071 (1991). Judge Parker also held that when attorneys scorn their oath, flout the rules, and attempt to undermine the integrity of the judicial process, they need to be sanctioned.
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 AllFor Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
4 minute readBenjamin West and John Singleton Copley: American Painters in London
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 2First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 3The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 4Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 5What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
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