The California State Bar has recommended that former legal advisor to former President Trump John Eastman be disbarred over an alleged “fake electors plan.”
The 128-page decision by State Bar Court of California Judge Yvette R. Roland was handed down on March 27 after a 35-day disciplinary proceeding last fall found Eastman culpable of violating ethical and legal standards in 10 of the 11 counts he faced.
A significant portion of the court’s decision focused on Eastman’s involvement in a lawsuit by the State of Texas against several states, including Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, that questioned the legitimacy of the election outcomes in those states as evidence of his guilt.
The court said Texas’ allegations were “without support” and found Eastman’s formal intervention in the case on behalf of then-President Trump to constitute proof of his “wrongdoing” and intent to “mislead” the court.
“Eastman’s actions transgressed those ethical limits by advocating, participating in, and pursuing a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support,” stated Roland, per Mediaite.
The court’s decision in the disciplinary proceeding renders the constitutional scholar and former Chapman University Law School Dean’s law license suspended pending a final ruling by the California Supreme Court.
The Dallas Express spoke with Eastman about the recent decision.
Eastman said that he and his legal team would be filing an appeal that should be expedited due to the interim suspension of his law license ordered by Roland.
He claimed that the hearing was the culmination of a concerted effort by a left-wing activist group, the States United Democracy Center (SUDC), which filed a complaint against him. He said SUDC was analogous to another group called The 65 Project, which had filed complaints against Trump’s attorneys across the country.
Eastman said The 65 Project’s “avowed purpose” was “not only to disbar all the attorneys but to make them so toxic in their firms and communities that right-wing talent won’t take on these kinds of election challenges again.”
He called this goal “a real threat to our adversarial system of justice.”
Initially, Eastman said the State Bar of California informed him that they had opened an investigation, alleging that he had “no evidence of the illegality and fraud that [he] had alleged in [his] various actions and public statements.”
Eastman told DX that he responded with nearly a hundred thousand pages of documents containing the precise evidence the bar claimed he did not have, including affidavits and expert reports.
He remarked that the trial took 10 weeks because his team thought it was “important to put the evidence in the record,” an opportunity that was not afforded in the other legal actions undertaken by Trump’s attorneys.
Eastman noted a silver lining in being forced to defend himself in the disciplinary hearing.
“It was the only time this opportunity had presented itself for people to actually see what went on in the 2020 election,” he said.
The unusually lengthy ethics trial included testimony from witnesses, including Garland Favorito, whom the defense called to substantiate the veracity of the election-related claims of irregularities and illegalities.
Favorito also provided testimony related to similar charges in another bar trial, that of Trump Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark. His testimony was picked up widely on social media as an erudite and well-prepared Favorito gave such compelling testimony under cross-examination that the prosecuting lawyer admitted that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger could be considered corrupt if he attempted to keep Favorito’s organization from inspecting the allegedly questionable ballots.
Eastman said he had initially intended Favorito to be a fact witness but quickly realized he was qualified to be an expert. Though the bar court rules permit this change in designation, the judge in the case denied the request. Therefore, Favorito could not render an opinion based on the facts.
Eastman also took issue with how media outlets have characterized his call for an alternate slate of electors as a “fake electors” scheme.
“The federal Constitution requires that the electors meet and vote on the day designated by Congress,” said Eastman.
He argued that this meant that an alternate slate was necessary in case the election challenges were to turn the results in Trump’s favor, as otherwise, those electoral votes for Trump could, in theory, be left uncounted.
Eastman also noted historical precedent for an alternative slate of electors, as John F. Kennedy’s electors took this route in Hawaii in the 1960 election.
As to his outlook on being the apparent target of a purportedly left-wing legal system, Eastman said he considers the attacks confirmation that he is on the right path.
“An old graduate school professor once told me that if you’re not catching incoming flack, you’re not over the target,” he said. “It’s an honor in my life that I’m able to be in a position on the front lines of this important battle.”
“I’m not backing down from this fight because it’s important. If we’re going to have a country where the government is answerable to the people through free and fair elections, and we’re going to be able to pass on such a country to our kids and grandkids, it’s important that people of courage stand up and now for what is going on,” Eastman added.
