The group had asked the Metropolitan District Court to block the Electoral College and Congress from confirming Biden’s victory. District Judge James Boisberg rejected their requests outright, describing them as “a fundamental and clear misreading of the Constitution” and “undermining the democratic elections for the President of the United States.”
“Courts are not tools by which parties can participate in such games or symbolic political initiatives,” wrote Boasberg.
He added, “As a result, at the conclusion of this lawsuit, the court will determine whether to issue an order to show why this matter has not been referred to its grievances committee for possible disciplinary action by the plaintiffs’ attorneys.”
Eric Cardall, the attorney for the plaintiffs, did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment.
Trump and his allies have lost about 50 lawsuits since the election, as many seek to promote unfounded theories of potential fraud, shake off millions of legitimate votes and nullify Biden’s victory so that Trump can stay in office.
Although judges vehemently rejected these efforts, few have taken concrete steps to consider the potential errors and errors of attorneys in litigation and whether they have upheld their ethical obligations as attorneys.
Federal judges have the power to try people appearing disdainfully in exceptional situations, and state bar associations also regulate licenses to practice law.
Eileen Block, a legal ethics attorney and assistant professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told CNN that, “At some point when you face judge after judge in court after court rejects your arguments, your arguments are clearly unfounded and that is the definition of what it means.” You have a frivolous lawsuit that doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success to some extent. “
Block described it as a surprise and disappointment that “the people who should know the rules of professional conduct and the rules that determine whether a lawsuit can go forward, and that these people only come forward and wish to bring it and are willing to stand behind one frivolous lawsuit after the other.”
Tom Mason, Harris Wiltshire and Grannis partner in the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Group, asserted that Boasberg was a float of potential professional discipline away from confirming wrongdoing.
“What this court is saying is, ‘I’m going to think about it, and what I’m going to think about is whether I’m going to issue an order to show the reason, and whether that thing should be referred to a commission of inquiry,’ ” Mason said. “This is a number of steps between, from this statement to any decision that any of the lawyers have acted in any way in contravention of their professional obligations.”
Mason continued, “People have the right to explore the limits of law in order to enact a new law, so not every effort that people think is new or (without precedent) is sanctionable. I hope not, because law is something that lives, breathes and moves. We need people to push the limits. To see where the law should develop. “
Attorney Big Pat said it was an uncommon response in a lawsuit by a judge to refer an attorney for possible discipline. But metropolitan district court rules allow judges who find the lawsuit frivolous – that the attorneys do not have evidence to support it or have no solid legal theory behind it – to refer attorneys for penalties directly from the court or from the state bar association where the attorney has admitted, he said.
While a potentially frivolous lawsuit does not seem to result in revocation of membership, Pat said, “You can definitely see penalties below like, what we call a public reprimand, where the state bar association says, ‘I did something wrong, no,'” do not do that again.” This reprimand will be part of the attorney general and permanent file. But it is all up to the bar. ”
“This is your license to make a living, and Trump will go at some point sooner rather than later,” Pat said. “And if a lawyer wants to continue practicing his profession in a particular court, then you need to follow the court’s rules.”
“I imagine threatening serious discipline will discourage lawyers from continuing,” Block added, but noted, “President Trump appears to have an enormous ability to get what he wants and influence the people who work for him, so I don’t,” I don’t know.