Here is a link to an article and a video discussion on why John Eastman should be disciplined.
Monday, January 30, 2023
Sunday, January 29, 2023
California files disciplinary complaint against John Eastman, the lawyers for the Trump campaign credited to have come up with a plan to have Mike Pence reject the results of the presidential election
Last week, the State Bar of California filed 11 disciplinary charges against attorney John Eastman based on his efforts to help overturn the results of the 2020 election in order to allow then-President Donald Trump remain in office. The news release by the State Bar of California is here.
According to an Op-Ed published in the Los Angeles Times, "[a]ccountability for Eastman is long overdue" because, even though he knew he was providing unlawful advice, he advised Mike Pence "to reject [Joe] Biden’s certification or otherwise tamper with it."
Here are a few links to more on this story:
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Idaho Supreme Court issues opinion explaining why it rejected Model Rule 8.4(g); hint: because it is unconstitutional...
In November 2021, the Idaho State Bar Commissioners recommended an amendment to Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 to include anti-discrimination and anti-harassment provisions along the lines of those in Model Rule 8.4(g). After the resolution was adopted by the members of the Bar, the proposal was sent to the Idaho Supreme Court but the Court declined to adopt the proposed amendment.
Last week, the Court issued a full opinion providing a full explanation of its rejection of the resolution explaining that it was “appropriate to explain our decision in some detail to explain our rationale for taking the action we are in order to provide guidance going forward in the event the Bar should seek to amend Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 in the future.”
The Court the proceeded to explain that although it commends the Bar’s continued attempts to address unlawful discrimination and harassment in the legal profession it felt obliged to reject the proposed resolution because, among other things, the proposed amendment “violates the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to withstand strict scrutiny” and because it is void for vagueness and could have a chilling effect on speech.
You can find a link to the full opinion here.
I am not surprised by the opinion. I, and many others, have been arguing that Model Rule 8.4(g)'s constitutionality is questionable for a long time. You can read all my posts on the subject by going here and scrolling down.
Saturday, January 21, 2023
Yesterday I reported that a federal court imposed almost a million dollars in sanctions on Donald Trump and his lawyers for a frivolous case that the court said "should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it."
Interestingly, soon after the imposition of sanctions, the Trump team decided to withdraw another case they had filed in a different court, which suggests that the sanctions may have had an effect!
Not surprisingly the news about the sanctions has generated a lot of coverage. Here are some links:
MSNBC (story and video)
And here are a few links on the story about the withdrawal of the other case
Friday, January 20, 2023
It can't be a good thing for the petitioner when the opinion of the court starts by saying "This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it."
Those are the first lines in an order filed yesterday by US District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks in a case filed by Donald Trump against Hilary Clinton.
And, as you would expect, the result was not favorable to the petitioner. In fact, in the end the judge concluded that "Plaintiff Donald J. Trump and Plaintiff’s lead attorney—Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates—are jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39."
Ouch! Jointly and severally liable. That means that Trump himself may have to pay part or all of that sanction. I wonder how well that is going to go.
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
As I reported yesterday, California is moving quickly to approve a modified version of Model Rule 8.3. Click here for the full text of the proposal.
Monday, January 16, 2023
California moves closer to adopting a rule requiring reporting of another attorney's misconduct (a la Model Rule 8.3)
Sunday, January 15, 2023
Friday, January 13, 2023
January 9, 2023
If you are reading this blog, you probably know already that the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by the attorney–client privilege if obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication. The case is called In re Grand Jury, and the oral argument is today!
Here are a few links with commentary. I will continue to update the list as more commentary is published after the oral argument.
UPDATE (1-13-2023): Here are a few more links to stories that discuss the case:
ABA Law Journal: "Law firm's more protective test for attorney-client privilege 'is a big ask,' Kagan says"
The National Law Review: "The Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege Over Dual-Purpose Communications"
The National Law Review: "U.S. Supreme Court Is Asked to Adopt the ‘Significant Purpose’ Test to Permit the Withholding of Dual-Purpose Communications as Subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege"