Last week, the California Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of John Eastman. It is a decision that will prevent Eastman from practicing law – the most serious punishment the California State Bar can deliver.

Eastman is the former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California. He represented President Donald Trump in some of his election challenges in 2020.

In 2020, I publicly disagreed with Eastman’s legal theory that Congress could block the certification of President Joe Biden.

However, Eastman’s disbarment should be a concern for everyone who values the rule of law and free speech.

After the election, various legal advisers told Trump that there wasn’t enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election –– as some of us in the media also said.

But Eastman and other lawyers believed there were still arguable grounds to challenge the certification.

In the past, Democrats in Congress had moved to block the certification of Republican presidents, and Eastman believed that their playbook was legal, or at least defensible.

Election disputes are often difficult to resolve in court because time is quite limited.

As the date for the 2020 certification approached, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and others made sensational claims about voting machines and other conspiracies that they later admitted were not supported by evidence.

The courts uniformly rejected these challenges.

Eastman is being punished for a different reason: He helped to develop Trump’s legal argument for blocking the election certification.

He admitted that there were few cases to cite as precedent, and acknowledged that he and the Trump legal team were advancing novel theories.

But that is not unusual in controversial cases.

California Post News: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn
California Post SportsFacebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X
California Post Opinion
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!
California Post App: Download here!
Home delivery: Sign up here!
Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here!

Public interest attorneys often advance novel legal arguments, challenging existing precedent and the status quo. Even longstanding precedents, like Roe v. Wade, have been overturned after years of litigation.

California State Bar officials failed to address the implications that disbarring Eastman would have on other cases in which new legal theories are tested.

The animus of the California State Bar was also evident in the original charges against Eastman. He was ultimately found guilty on 10 of 11 charges of egregious and deceitful conduct.

The lower court’s decision placed great emphasis on Eastman’s public remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, at Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally. The court dismissed his claims that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Democratic Party election lawyers have been punished by courts and accused of meritless or unsupported claims. However, bar associations in “blue” states have not moved to disbar them, and I would not support such an effort.

Take Democrat attorney Marc Elias. He was a critical player in the infamous Steele dossier on “Russia collusion,” and helped push the false Alfa Bank conspiracy.

In Maryland, Elias’s team filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found not only violated Maryland law, but also the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map “subverts the will of those governed.”

In 2024, the chief judge of the Western District of Wisconsin not only rejected but ridiculed the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”

Elias has been sanctioned in court. However, neither he nor associates were, of course, disbarred over prior challenges.

The California Bar and the California Supreme Court insist that they are merely imposing minimal standards of conduct in disbarring Eastman.

However, the record in this matter shows more distemper than deliberation on critical points.

The California State Bar has created new problems, rather than clarifying standards.

Even as someone who disagreed with John Eastman, I am not sure what the standard is for zealous advocacy by attorneys.

While Eastman was giving bad advice, he was not committing a crime or, in my view, committing an offense that deserved disbarment.

There cannot be a different standard for different candidates, or different clients.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”