The group asked the DC District Court to block voting by the Electoral College and Congress to confirm Biden’s victory. District Judge James Boasberg totally rejected his requests, calling them a “fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution” and “the weakening of a democratic election for President of the United States”.
“Courts are not instruments through which the parties engage in such a game or symbolic political gestures,” wrote Boasberg.
“As a result, at the conclusion of this dispute,” he added, “the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show the cause why this matter should not be referred to its Complaints Committee for possible discipline by the Claimants’ lawyer.”
Erick Kaardal, a plaintiff’s lawyer, did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment.
Trump and his allies lost about 50 lawsuits they have opened since the election, with many seeking to push unfounded theories of possible fraud, reject millions of legitimate votes and undo Biden’s victory so that Trump can stay in office.
Although the judges vehemently rejected the efforts, few took tangible steps to investigate possible filing errors and lawyers’ errors in the lawsuits and whether they maintained their ethical obligations as lawyers.
Federal judges have the power to convict people who appear before them for contempt in extraordinary situations, and state bar associations also regulate licenses for practicing law.
Elaine Block, a lawyer specializing in legal ethics and adjunct professor at the Georgetown Law Center, told CNN that “at some point when you face judge after judge in court after court rejecting your arguments, it is clear that your arguments are unfounded and this is the definition of what it means to have a frivolous process that has more or less any reasonable chance of success. “
Block called it surprising and disappointing that “people who should know the rules of professional conduct and the rules that determine whether a process can proceed, that these people are just taking the action and are willing to take the process and are willing to support one after another frivolous process. “
Tom Mason, a partner at Harris Wiltshire and Grannis in their legal ethics and malpractice group, emphasized that Boasberg floating in potential professional discipline was far from a confirmation of 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 demonstrate the cause, whether this should be referred to an investigation commission,'” Mason said. “So there are a series of steps between that statement and any determination that any of the lawyers acted inconsistently with their professional obligations. “
Mason continued: “People have the right to explore the limits of the law in order to make a new law, so not every effort that people think is new or (unprecedented) is something that can be sanctioned. I hope not, because the law is something that lives and breathes and moves. We need people to push the limits to see where the law should develop. “
Lawyer Page Pate said it was an unusual response in a lawsuit for a judge to refer a lawyer for possible disciplinary action. But DC district court rules allow judges who consider a frivolous lawsuit – that lawyers lacked evidence to support it or did not have a solid legal theory behind it – to direct lawyers to sanctions directly from the court or the bar of the state where the lawyer is admitted, he said.
Although a potentially frivolous process did not look like it would lead to exclusion, Pate said: “you could certainly see sanctions below that, like, what we would call a public reprimand, where the state bar says, ‘You did something wrong, don’t do it again . And that reprimand would be a part of the lawyer’s permanent and public file. But it all depends on the order’s committee. ”
“This is his license to make a living, and Trump will leave at some point, probably sooner or later,” Pate continued. “And if the lawyer wants to continue to practice in a particular court, you will need to follow the court’s rules.”
Block added that “I imagine that the threat of serious discipline would dissuade lawyers from continuing,” but noted that “President Trump seems to have an extraordinary ability to get what he wants and to influence the people who work for him, so I don’t know. . “