Page 1

State Bar Seeks Disbarment of Ex-Law Dean John Eastman

By a MetNews Staff Writer

The State Bar of California said yesterday it will seek the disbarment of former Chapman University School of Law Dean John Eastman based on his participation in an effort to block Joseph Biden from taking office as president through allegations of election fraud, blaming him, in part for the Jan. 6, 2021 storming of the Capitol by throngs of supporters of President Donald Trump.

The notice of charges cites his speech in the District of Columbia at the “Save America March” in which he asserted that Vice President Mike Pence had the legal authority to delay certification of the Electoral College results while alleged irregularities were probed. The notice says:

“By telling the crowd of protestors, from a position of authority as a professor and purported ‘preeminent constitutional scholar,’ that fraud had occurred in the election, that dead people had voted, that electronic voting machines had been used to fraudulently alter the election results, that Pence had authority to delay the counting of votes, and that Pence did not deserve to be in office if he did not delay the counting of votes, respondent made false and misleading statements that contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol in an effort to intimidate Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding, when such harm was foreseeable, and thereby committed an act of moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.”

11 Counts

Eastman—who authored a two-page memo setting forth a strategy for overturning the results of the 2000 presidential election—is charged with a failure to support the Constitution and laws of the United States, two counts of seeking to mislead a court, and eight counts of “moral turpitude—misrepresentation.”

It is charged:

“As a result of information received from credible sources and numerous court rulings, by no later than on or about December 9, 2020, respondent knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable attorney would rely of election fraud or illegality that could have affected the outcome of the election, and that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable attorney would rely that the election had been ‘stolen’ by the Democratic Party or other parties acting in a coordinated conspiracy to fraudulently ‘steal’ the election from Trump.

“Nevertheless, from on or about December 9, 2020, and continuing to at least on or about January 6. 2021, respondent continued to work with Trump and others to promote the idea that the outcome of the election was in question and had been stolen from Trump as the result of fraud, disregard of state election law, and misconduct by election officials. In doing so, respondent violated his obligations as an attorney in two ways.”

The notice elaborates:

“First, he provided legal advice, formulated legal strategies, and engaged in litigation based on, and made public statements propounding, allegations of election fraud that he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing were false. Second, based on misinterpretations of historical sources, misinterpretations of law review articles, and law review articles that he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing were themselves fundamentally flawed, he provided, and proposed actions based on. legal advice regarding the unilateral authority of the Vice President to disregard or delay the counting of electoral votes that he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, was contrary to and unsupported by the historical record and established legal authority and precedent, including the Electoral Count Act and the Twelfth Amendment, such that no reasonable attorney with expertise in constitutional or election law would have concluded that the Vice President was legally authorized to take the actions respondent proposed.”

Chief Counsel Comments

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona was quoted in a press release as saying:

“There is nothing more sacrosanct to our American democracy than free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. For California attorneys, adherence to the U.S. and California Constitutions is their highest legal duty. The Notice of Disciplinary Charges alleges that Mr. Eastman violated this duty in furtherance of an attempt to usurp the will of the American people and overturn election results for the highest office in the land—an egregious and unprecedented attack on our democracy—for which he must be held accountable.”

On Dec. 19, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol voted unanimously to refer Eastman to the U.S. Department of Justice for possible prosecution for obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defrauding the United States.

Eastman, 62, was admitted to the State Bar on Dec. 15, 1997. His law degree is from the University of Chicago.

Ballot Designation

He was a candidate in 2010 in the Republican primary for California attorney general. His chosen ballot designation was “Assistant Attorney General.”

Eastman was not a member of the California’s Office of Attorney General. He attempted to justify the description on the basis of having written a brief as a “special assistant attorney general” in South Dakota.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge held that the designation was deceptive and disallowed it.

Eastman had been the dean at Chapman’s law school in the City of Orange but stepped down in January, 2010, to run for office. He later became a professor there, bit resigned on Jan, 13, 2021, in light of controversy over his Jan. 6 speech.