California Bar on trial for persecuting Trump campaign lawyer John Eastman.

State Bar of California Trial: Disbarment of John Eastman

This week marked the beginning of the highly anticipated live-streaming trial by the State Bar of California. The trial aims to disbar John Eastman, who is accused of violating his ethical duties as an attorney in his role of challenging the 2020 presidential election results on behalf of Donald Trump’s campaign. The charges against Eastman allege that he knowingly advanced false facts and legal theories, advising his client to act based on these falsehoods, thus failing to uphold the Constitution and U.S. laws.

California State Bar attorney Duncan Carling argued that Eastman’s actions were an attempt to help Trump steal an election that he had already lost. Carling presented evidence suggesting that Eastman’s entire course of conduct was designed to halt the congressional count of electoral votes. At the time, there was significant controversy surrounding the ballot counting in key states, with numerous allegations of election irregularities. Eastman and others called for state legislatures to conduct full audits.

The California State Bar’s prosecution of Eastman assumes it was frivolous and in bad faith for Trump campaign election lawyers to push for such audits and try to get Vice President Mike Pence to either “reject or adjourn” the electoral votes. This sets a dangerous precedent, potentially discouraging lawyers from zealously advocating for their clients due to fear of advancing novel legal theories based on their clients’ politics.

Setting a Dangerous Precedent

During the trial, Carling questioned Eastman’s judgment regarding the authority of state legislatures to overturn certifications made by state election officials. However, Eastman, a respected constitutional scholar, provided a compelling argument in response.

For example, in Pennsylvania, state election officials had changed election procedures contrary to existing state statutory law, citing Covid-19 precautions. The partisan Pennsylvania Supreme Court supported the election officials’ decision. Eastman and other legal observers pointed to the specific wording of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the state legislatures the power to appoint electors. This view was not considered frivolous at the time and should not be grounds for disbarment.

What About Existing Precedent?

Gregory Jacob, Pence’s former counsel and a witness for the California Bar, testified about discussions he had with Eastman regarding the scope of Pence’s authority to reject electors or adjourn the proceedings. They explored various legal theories and historical precedents, including the creation of a special Electoral Commission in 1876 to investigate election doubts. The lack of clear case precedent and the abundance of conjecture highlight the need for lawyers to make legal arguments without fear of disbarment.

The California Bar’s prosecution of Eastman seems to be driven by his alleged incitement of the January 6 “insurrection.” However, this overlooks the broader implications for lawyers advocating for their clients and the potential suppression of novel constitutional arguments.

A Rush to Judgment

The California Bar’s persecution of Eastman appears to be fueled by a rush to judgment and a deep-seated animosity towards Trump. This rush to judgment contradicts the principles of fair evaluation and due process, resembling the very cancel culture it claims to oppose. The trial’s outcome may have far-reaching consequences that will take years, if not generations, to fully comprehend.