An arm of the D.C. Bar found Thursday that Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and personal attorney to President Donald Trump, violated the terms of his license to practice law in the nation’s capital when he filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania trying to block certification of the results in the 2020 presidential election.
Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning.
The preliminary finding by the D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility means Giuliani and his legal team will have to file additional briefs detailing his defense and his role in the lawsuit, as officials consider what discipline he should face. Robert Bernius, the board’s chairman, said after a private 15-minute discussion Thursday that the finding was “preliminary and nonbinding.”
Hamilton “Phil” Fox III, the lead prosecuting attorney for the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, told the board that Giuliani’s conduct “calls for only one sanction, and that’s the sanction of disbarment.”
“What Mr. Giuliani did was use his law license to undermine the legitimacy of a presidential election, to undermine the basic premise of the democratic system that we all live in, that has been in place since the 1800s in this country,” Fox said.
But Bernius asked whether disbarment was extreme, noting that former D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. was suspended from practicing law in the city for only 90 days when he sued a dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of missing pants. That D.C. case garnered national attention.
In hearings last week, Fox argued that Giuliani had “weaponized” his law license in filing the lawsuit in Pennsylvania that falsely claimed that the November 2020 presidential election in that state was riddled with fraud. Those claims, Fox said, were “unfounded.”
He told the board that Giuliani had a “distinguished” career as a former federal prosecutor and a former U.S. attorney in New York. But “that was 20 years ago,” he said. “It’s like there are two different people. I don’t know if something happened to Mr. Giuliani or what.”
During his own testimony, Giuliani often minimized his role in the lawsuit and asserted that he had done nothing wrong.
The Republican former New York mayor told board members that other attorneys were responsible for the language in the suit and that he had little time to thoroughly investigate the allegations himself before filing it. He claimed doing so is common practice, as allegations in lawsuits often are investigated after cases are filed.
“You have to plead fraud with specificity with what you have, with what is available,” Giuliani said. “But in discovery you get the additional information. This was specific enough for this stage of the pleading. That’s why it’s evidence and not a conclusion.”
Fox disputed that.
“There was a conspiracy, and he was the head of it,” he said. “It was shoot first, ask questions later. Lawyers can’t do that.”
Giuliani’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of then-President Trump, was rejected by a judge. And a federal appeals court refused to let the campaign file a revised complaint.
Giuliani’s attorney, John Leventhal, a retired New York judge, argued that because Trump’s Pennsylvania legal challenge did not go forward, there was no legal reason for Giuliani to have his law license revoked. He said Thursday that doing so would “chill any advocacy,” and that the board should consider a letter of reprimand or private admonishment.
Last year, the New York State appellate court temporarily suspended Giuliani’s law license on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee, after finding he had sought to mislead judges, lawmakers and the public as he helped shepherd Trump’s election results challenge.
Giuliani has been licensed in the District since 1976, though his license had been inactive when it was suspended amid allegations of impropriety.
After hearing testimony over three days last week and closing arguments from both sides, the D.C. Bar allowed Giuliani to testify Thursday about his efforts to interview witnesses in Philadelphia who claimed that they were barred from viewing the opening of election ballots.
Giuliani said that he interviewed about four or five individuals but that doing so at voting sites “was very chaotic” in the hours after the election.
“It was on the verge of violence, with a lot of yelling,” Giuliani said. “It was like being at a Philadelphia Eagles football game.”
In July, the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel also levied ethics charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department assistant attorney general who worked on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The board alleged in particular that Clark engaged in dishonest conduct when he drafted a letter he wanted the Justice Department to send to Georgia state officials demanding that the state legislature call a special session to examine votes in the presidential election.
Hearings in Clark’s case could begin as early as next month.
Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning.
The preliminary finding by the D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility means Giuliani and his legal team will have to file additional briefs detailing his defense and his role in the lawsuit, as officials consider what discipline he should face. Robert Bernius, the board’s chairman, said after a private 15-minute discussion Thursday that the finding was “preliminary and nonbinding.”
Hamilton “Phil” Fox III, the lead prosecuting attorney for the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, told the board that Giuliani’s conduct “calls for only one sanction, and that’s the sanction of disbarment.”
“What Mr. Giuliani did was use his law license to undermine the legitimacy of a presidential election, to undermine the basic premise of the democratic system that we all live in, that has been in place since the 1800s in this country,” Fox said.
But Bernius asked whether disbarment was extreme, noting that former D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. was suspended from practicing law in the city for only 90 days when he sued a dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of missing pants. That D.C. case garnered national attention.
In hearings last week, Fox argued that Giuliani had “weaponized” his law license in filing the lawsuit in Pennsylvania that falsely claimed that the November 2020 presidential election in that state was riddled with fraud. Those claims, Fox said, were “unfounded.”
He told the board that Giuliani had a “distinguished” career as a former federal prosecutor and a former U.S. attorney in New York. But “that was 20 years ago,” he said. “It’s like there are two different people. I don’t know if something happened to Mr. Giuliani or what.”
During his own testimony, Giuliani often minimized his role in the lawsuit and asserted that he had done nothing wrong.
The Republican former New York mayor told board members that other attorneys were responsible for the language in the suit and that he had little time to thoroughly investigate the allegations himself before filing it. He claimed doing so is common practice, as allegations in lawsuits often are investigated after cases are filed.
“You have to plead fraud with specificity with what you have, with what is available,” Giuliani said. “But in discovery you get the additional information. This was specific enough for this stage of the pleading. That’s why it’s evidence and not a conclusion.”
Fox disputed that.
“There was a conspiracy, and he was the head of it,” he said. “It was shoot first, ask questions later. Lawyers can’t do that.”
Giuliani’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of then-President Trump, was rejected by a judge. And a federal appeals court refused to let the campaign file a revised complaint.
Giuliani’s attorney, John Leventhal, a retired New York judge, argued that because Trump’s Pennsylvania legal challenge did not go forward, there was no legal reason for Giuliani to have his law license revoked. He said Thursday that doing so would “chill any advocacy,” and that the board should consider a letter of reprimand or private admonishment.
Last year, the New York State appellate court temporarily suspended Giuliani’s law license on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee, after finding he had sought to mislead judges, lawmakers and the public as he helped shepherd Trump’s election results challenge.
Giuliani has been licensed in the District since 1976, though his license had been inactive when it was suspended amid allegations of impropriety.
After hearing testimony over three days last week and closing arguments from both sides, the D.C. Bar allowed Giuliani to testify Thursday about his efforts to interview witnesses in Philadelphia who claimed that they were barred from viewing the opening of election ballots.
Giuliani said that he interviewed about four or five individuals but that doing so at voting sites “was very chaotic” in the hours after the election.
“It was on the verge of violence, with a lot of yelling,” Giuliani said. “It was like being at a Philadelphia Eagles football game.”
In July, the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel also levied ethics charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department assistant attorney general who worked on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The board alleged in particular that Clark engaged in dishonest conduct when he drafted a letter he wanted the Justice Department to send to Georgia state officials demanding that the state legislature call a special session to examine votes in the presidential election.
Hearings in Clark’s case could begin as early as next month.
