Democratic Members File Bar Criticism In opposition to Trump Counsel Joe diGenova – Thelegaltorts

YouTube screenshot

We previously discussed the abusive move by Rep. Bill Prascell (D., NY) to request the banning of about a dozen Trump and Republican attorneys for contesting election results. Such calls are the order of the day. During the impeachment trial of President Trump, North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt predicted that Trump’s entire legal team would be expelled after serving the president. Now Democratic officials Kathleen Rice (DN.Y.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) Have filed a complaint alleging direct code violations against Trump attorney Joe diGenova for his recent controversial remarks on dismissed cybersecurity and Chris Krebs, head of the Infrastructure Security Agency. In an interview, diGenova demanded that Cancer be “pulled and quartered” because he did not protect that choice. While I found that I didn’t believe diGenova was actually calling for violence, I immediately criticized these comments. However, despite the contrary view of Ethics Professor Stephen Gillers, I do not believe that this constitutes an ethical violation, even remotely. However, it is a clear use of legal rules for a political purpose. In particular, Rice and Lieu, both attorneys, have remained silent about the campaign of harassment and abuse by groups like the Lincoln Project. There were no calls to ban these lawyers or to investigate threats of violence against Republican lawyers. In fact, I haven’t read a single lawyer or law firm sponsoring the Lincoln Project, which denounced its campaign to harass other lawyers – a campaign that began shortly after Joe Biden was declared the alleged winner.

I did not hesitate to call an attorney for election-related violations that could result in a lockdown, like the latest Republican attorney allegedly demanding the registration of people outside of the state to fraudulently vote in Georgia. DiGenova’s comments, while condemnable, were clearly intended as a joke. It just wasn’t fun, especially in these increasingly violent times.

Joe diGenova interviewed Newsmax ‘The Howie Carr Show and said cancer should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out and shot at dawn.” It was a typical overheated statement of the “This guy should be shot” sort. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval execution method. It was an example of overkill both literally and figuratively.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He explained, “It was obvious to anyone who heard the Howie Carr Show that my comments were sarcastic and joking. Of course, I do not wish Mr Krebs any harm. This was an exaggeration in political discourse. “

Even so, these members filed a legal complaint. Imagine the impact on freedom of expression if lawyers could be brought before prosecutors for such political statements. This was not in a filing in court. It was a comment on diGenova’s view that the elections could not be protected. This has nothing to do with the accuracy of the underlying comments. I obviously don’t agree with that. I immediately condemned it. However, it is like the attorney’s complaint filed against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fl.) For his actions in Congress. It is the weapon of the lawyer appeals process for political purposes.

The basis for the complaint are different rules: Rule 8.4 (maintaining the integrity of the profession); Rule 3.6 (Litigation Advertising); and rule 4.4 (respect for the rights of third parties). As is so often the case, various legal experts quickly declared the charges to be well-founded and compelling. It seems that when the target is Trump or his employees, any ethical and criminal charge, under unlimited interpretations of the underlying provisions, will stand in the face. No concerns are raised about the impact of such charges on freedom of expression or possible political abuse.

Mark Zaid stated that “no sane person” who heard diGenova demand that a person be drawn and quartered and then shot would “have considered it a” joke “.” No sane person. Randall Eliason of the Washington Post seemed to disagree that this was “just a colorful metaphor”. Professor Steve Vladeck stated, “Lawyers making such threats should be expelled. Period. “These are both individuals who have made extensive criminal and ethical claims against Trump and others over the past four years, including (in Eliason’s case) interpretations that have long been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Gillers emphasized that Rule 8.4 (b) and Rule 8.4 (d) apply to attorneys who “(b) commit an offense that adversely affects the solicitor’s honesty, trustworthiness or suitability as an attorney in any other way” or “(d) Conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. “

Gillers correctly notes this “In relation to (b), the attorney is not required to be prosecuted as long as the act is criminal and adversely affects his ‘fitness’.” The problem is that this is not a crime. It’s a reckless statement. It’s unclear how Gillers believes diGenova would be charged with a crime over such frequent hyperbolic testimony, but it would result in tens of millions of people being marched into prison with frogs.

As a free speech advocate, I am particularly sensitive to his sweeping statement because I have it long opposite cases of “violent speech”. Indeed we do previously discussed the topic of violent speech in a column in which I spoke out against the charges against Michael Brown’s stepfather during the Ferguson Riots. I don’t think such comments match the standard set by the 1969 Brandenburg Supreme Court versus Ohio as advocates of impending violence. Violent statements are constitutionally protected, provided there is no threat of violence. I have previously written about the dangerous line of criminalizing language. I currently have a case in federal court on the matter in the United States against Al-Timimi.

We saw some extensions of the code of ethics to include criticism of judges (Here and Here), a move I also rejected as a threat to freedom of expression. However, these cases included criticism of judges in actual cases in which the lawyers appeared.

The controversy surrounding diGenova’s comment does not come close to any theory of justification for a crime.

Gillers also alleges that diGenova’s comment “has disrupted the administration of justice,” as stated in rule 8.4 (d). The basis of this claim is that “the work of the courts will be seriously affected when it comes to addressing the campaign claim that the election was unfair”. This statement is both legally and factually unfounded. Cancer is actually not a party and is not expected to witness these electoral challenges, most of which are currently being negotiated at the vocational level. Gillers insists, however, that “a disciplinary body could find that diGenova’s threats to cancer calling the election fair are seriously damaging the work of the courts if they address campaign claims that the election was unfair.” In this case, I believe it would be an improper use of the legal process to target a lawyer for political reasons.

This type of controversy obviously involves a mixture of concerns about legal ethics, criminal law, and freedom of speech. In my view, these allegations constitute an abuse of the legal process and should be condemned by all lawyers, even if we condemn diGenova’s comments.

Leave a Comment