Photo: Pool / Getty Images News / Getty Images
SANTA ANA (CNS) - A California State Bar hearing judge Wednesday recommended disbarment for one-time Chapman University law school dean John Eastman for his role as former President Donald Trump's attorney in attempts to delay or block the certification of the election of President Joe Biden.
The hearing judge, Yvette D. Roland, also recommended Eastman, who was admitted to the State Bar in 1997, pay $10,000. Half of the $10,000 fine is for filing lawsuits "seeking to mislead the courts," and the other half is for "making numerous false and misleading statements" regarding the 2020 election and certification of the vote.
It will now be up to the state Supreme Court to make a final ruling on the recommended disbarment.
Eastman's attorney, Randall Miller, issued a statement saying, "we are confident the review court will swiftly provide a remedy."
In her ruling, Roland rejected Eastman's arguments that he was acting in good faith on behalf of a client -- Trump.
She noted that, "Even if Eastman honestly believed he acted in good faith, it was not objectively reasonable for him to have such belief," she wrote.
She also faulted him for not comprehending the allegations against him
"Despite the compelling evidence against him ... Eastman remains defiant, refusing to acknowledge any impropriety whatsoever in his actions surrounding his efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results," Roland wrote in her opinion. "His lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his misconduct is deeply troubling."
She added: "Eastman's complete denial of wrongdoing, coupled with his attempts to discredit legitimate disciplinary proceedings are concerning. While Eastman is entitled to defend himself, his conduct goes beyond this, revealing a complete failure to understand the wrongfulness of his actions."
Eastman began making national headlines when he addressed the crowd of Trump supporters in Washington, D.C., before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol aimed at halting the certification of President Joseph Biden's election. It set off a firestorm at Chapman University, where some faculty and students pushed for the ouster of Eastman, who had been its law school dean from 2007-10. Eastman agreed to retire in January 2021.
A year later, Eastman sued the congressional Jan. 6 committee seeking to block lawmakers from accessing his Chapman emails. That litigation ultimately led U.S. District Judge David O. Carter to turn over some emails that would normally be kept private by law because Carter concluded there was evidence a crime was committed in efforts to overturn the election results.
Eastman then faced discipline from the State Bar, which sought to disbar the constitutional scholar. Eastman and his attorneys sparred with the Bar's lawyers for 35 days of trial that included 23 witnesses.
During the trial, Eastman was indicted in Georgia with multiple other defendants, including the ex-president, on election fraud charges.
Miller noted the criminal case in Georgia, arguing it was unfair to strip his client of his law license as he prepares to defend himself.
"Any reasonable person can see the inherent unfairness of prohibiting a presumed-innocent defendant from being able to earn the funds needed to pay for the enormous expenses required to defend himself, in the profession in which he has long been licensed," Miller said. "That is not justice and serves no legitimate purpose to protect the public."
Eastman was accused by the State Bar of conspiring with Trump "to develop and implement a strategy to obstruct the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and to illegally disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joseph Biden, knowing that there was no plausible evidence, and no good faith theory or argument, to lawfully undo or delay the January 6 electoral count," State Bar attorney Duncan Carling argued in his closing brief.
In her ruling, Roland disagreed with the Bar's prosecutors that Eastman's "misconduct contributed to the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021," citing a lack of "specific evidence" of that.
"Here, the connection between Eastman's actions and the alleged harm remains speculative," Roland wrote.
Roland said there was no previous case history that was "directly on point" regarding the allegations presented in Eastman's case, but she agreed with prosecutors that the most closely aligned precedent involved former President Richard Nixon campaign supporter Don Segretti.
"The scale and egregiousness of Eastman's unethical actions far surpasses the misconduct at issue in Segretti," Roland said. "Unlike Segretti, whose offenses occurred outside his role as an attorney, Eastman's wrongdoing was committed directly in the course and scope of his representation of President Trump and the Trump campaign. This is an important factor, as it constitutes a fundamental breach of an attorney's core ethical duties."
Segretti, she noted, was 30 at the time and was remorseful.
"To the contrary, Eastman has exhibited an unwillingness to acknowledge any ethical lapses regarding his actions, demonstrating an apparent inability to accept responsibility," Roland said. "This lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public."
Carling, the Bar prosecutor, noted in his closing brief that by mid- December 2020, courts in seven key states where election challenges had been made were "uniformly rejected." The Trump administration's Justice and Homeland Security Departments had also rebuked Trump's claims of widespread fraud, Carling added.
The governors in the seven states, including some who were Republicans with legislative majorities, had certified Biden's election. The Electoral College had also certified the results.
"By the time (Eastman) wrote his Dec. 23 and Jan. 3 memoranda, therefore, he knew that there could be no true dispute about who had won the election," Carling said.
Still, Eastman pressed then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the slates of electors in the seven states or send them back to the state legislatures for continued investigation of the debunked fraud claims, Carling said. That move would violate the Electoral Count Act, which has been in place for more than a century, Carling said.
He added, "it would effectively make Pence the sole and final super- judge of the lawfulness of state elections -- and, indeed, of his own election - - contrary to the Framers' intent, established principles of federalism and separation of powers, and any notion of checks and balances."
Carling also criticized Eastman's speech at the Ellipse before mobs of Trump supporters marched over to the Capitol, with many rioting and breaking into the buildings to disrupt Congress from certifying Biden's victory. Eastman continued making the case to Pence's attorney even as the violence was unfolding, Carling added.
Eastman relied on and "purposely parroted the misguided opinions and narratives of demonstrably unqualified, unvetted, and unreliable `experts,"' Carling said.
Carling pointed out that even Eastman's own expert, John Yoo, acknowledged that Biden won "fair and square" in his testimony. Carling added that Yoo himself capitulated when then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr declared there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the election.
Eastman's "misconduct is much more egregious and has a direct correlation to the Jan. 6 riot, which caused serious physical harm," Carling said.
Eastman's attorney, Miller, however, argued that the "renowned constitutional scholar, professor, and former dean" did nothing wrong and was "zealously" advocating for his client as he pursued a legal theory.
Eastman "based on thorough research and his extensive knowledge (gained during decades of scholarly study) of core separation of powers principles codified in the Constitution, Dr. Eastman determined that another viable remedy was for the President of the Senate (the vice president of the United States) to accede to requests from state legislators for a brief delay in the electoral college proceedings, in order to allow for additional time for state legislatures to exercise their constitutional power of determining whether illegality in the election had affected the outcome," Miller wrote in his closing brief.
Miller contended that it was still an "open question" how much authority the vice president has in the counting of electoral votes.
"Crafting such legal arguments, grounded in a good-faith interpretation of the historical record and not foreclosed by precedent, is precisely what is demanded of attorneys in our adversarial system," Miller said.
Miller further argued that Eastman was "fully protected by the First Amendment" in his statements about election fraud.
Former Vice President Mike Pence's attorney, Greg Jacob, testified during the disbarment hearing that all his former boss was tasked with doing was opening the envelopes from the electors and recording the results. Jacob said Pence lacked any authority to delay the proceedings or reject any of the electors who sided with Biden.
Jacob said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that spells out anything about the role of the vice president -- as president of the U.S. Senate -- in certifying the electoral college results other than opening them. It is a "ministerial" role, he said.
Roland noted in her ruling that Eastman's testimony in the trial "seemed evasive and inconsistent at times and there is limited clear and convincing evidence to establish that Eastman was dishonest in his testimony."
Roland did acknowledge Eastman presented 14 written testimonials and five live witnesses during the trial to testify to his good character.
"Despite their awareness of the pending charges, the witnesses consistently and uniformly attested to Eastman's positive character traits, such as his professionalism, integrity, honestly, fairness and respect," Roland said.