State Bar Court Hearing Judge Recommends John Eastman’s Disbarment

In a 128-page ruling, California State Bar Court Hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland found licensee John Charles Eastman (SBN 193726) culpable of 10 of the disciplinary charges filed by the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) and recommended that he be disbarred. Absent a challenge, the recommendation goes to the California Supreme Court for review. 

As is the case for all State Bar Court disbarment recommendations, Eastman is ordered by the court to involuntary inactive status and cannot practice law in California while the Supreme Court considers the case. The order to inactive status is effective three calendar days after the order is served.

“Every California attorney has the duty to uphold the constitution and the rule of law,” said Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona. “Mr. Eastman repeatedly violated that duty. Worse, he did so in a way that threatened the fundamental principles of our democracy. The substantial evidence presented over 35 days of trial showed, and the court has now held, that Mr. Eastman abandoned his ethical and legal duties as an attorney to conspire with then-President Donald Trump to develop and implement a strategy to obstruct the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and illegally disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joseph Biden, knowing that there was no good faith theory or argument to lawfully reject the electoral votes of any state or delay the January 6 electoral count. Mr. Eastman’s efforts failed only because our democratic institutions and those committed to upholding them held strong. The harm caused by Mr. Eastman’s abandonment of his duties as a lawyer, and the threat his actions posed to our democracy, more than warrant his disbarment.”

Summarizing the court’s findings, the decision states, “Eastman’s wrongdoing constitutes exceptionally serious ethical violations warranting severe professional discipline,” and recommends his disbarment. <Source>

• Count 1 – Failing to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States by planning, promoting, executing, and assisting Trump in executing a strategy for Trump to overturn the legitimate results of the election by obstructing the counting of electoral votes of certain states, which strategy Eastman knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, was not supported by either the facts or law. Business and Professions Code section 6068(a).

• Count 2 – Seeking to mislead the U.S. Supreme Court when he, on behalf of Trump, filed pleadings in Texas v. Pennsylvania, seeking to block the counting of electoral votes from four states carried by President Biden. In doing so, Eastman adopted Texas’s false and misleading factual allegations. Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).

• Count 3 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption by, in his two-page memo, falsely stating that seven states “have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.” Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 4 – Seeking to mislead the court in the Northern District of Georgia by filing a pleading on behalf of Trump in Trump v. Kemp, seeking an emergency injunction to decertify Georgia’s election results, which contained factual allegations Eastman knew were false and misleading. Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).

• Count 5 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption when he appeared on the “Bannon’s War Room” radio program and made statements about absentee ballot fraud that he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, were false and misleading. He made these false and misleading statements with the intent to encourage the public to question the legitimacy of the election results. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 6 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption by, in his six-page memo, making various false and misleading statements about the 2020 election. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 7 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption when he, on Jan. 6, 2021, with the intent of promoting doubt about the results of the election, told thousands of people at the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol that Dominion electronic voting machines fraudulently manipulated results. He knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that his statements were false and misleading. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 8 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption by stating to former Vice President Mike Pence’s attorney, with the intent of pressuring Pence to adjourn the joint session of Congress, that there was “compelling” and “overwhelming” evidence that the election was “stolen,” when he knew the statement was false and misleading. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 9 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption when, with the intent to encourage the general public to question the legitimacy of the election results, he published an article in the American Mind, a publication of the Claremont Institute, regarding the 2020 presidential election containing false and misleading statements. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 10 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption when he proposed to Pence that Pence had the legal authority to and should act unilaterally to resolve purported disputes regarding electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, or that Pence had the legal authority unilaterally to delay certification of the votes. Eastman advanced a radical and incorrect theory of constitutional law and election law, based on misinterpreted historical sources, misinterpreted law review articles, and law review articles which he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, were themselves fundamentally flawed, and on the false premise that the seven states at issue had transmitted alternate slates of electors, such that no reasonable attorney with expertise in constitutional law or election law would conclude that Pence was legally authorized to take the actions that respondent proposed. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

• Count 11 – Committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption when he made false and misleading statements that contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol to intimidate Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding, when such harm was foreseeable. Business and Professions Code section 6106.

Introduction

In this contested disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (OCTC) charged John Charles Eastman (Eastman) with 11 counts of misconduct arising from certain activities surrounding his representation of former president Donald J. Trump and the 2020 presidential election. Eastman is charged with one count of failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068, subd. (a));1 two counts of seeking to mislead a court (§ 6068, subd. (d)); six counts of moral turpitude by making various misrepresentations (§ 6106); and two additional counts of moral turpitude (§ 6106).

After full consideration of the record, the court finds that OCTC has satisfied its burden of proving all charges except for count eleven, which the court dismisses with prejudice. In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman’s misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred.

...

“The court has already determined that the following statements made by Eastman were false and deceptive: (1) that fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election (count two); (2) that dead people voted (counts two and four); (3) that electronic voting machines were used fraudulently to alter the election results (count seven); and (4) that Vice President Pence had the authority to delay the vote counting (count ten).”

[OCS: There exists a substantial body of documentary evidence and sworn testimony that supports the allegations that “(1) that fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election (count two); (2) that dead people voted (counts two and four); (3) that electronic voting machines were used fraudulently to alter the election results (count seven).”

As for “(4) that Vice President Pence had the authority to delay the vote counting (count ten),” this is the type of novel legal theory that appears in legal proceedings. Other than the classified documents case against Trump, the Georgia and New York prosecutions feature novel, untested legal theories that may not stand in an appellate challenge.

It should be noted that “on August 14, 2023, Eastman and 18 other people were indicted by a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury for participating in Donald's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia. Eastman surrendered on August 22 and was booked at the Fulton County jail.”

Count Eleven – Moral Turpitude (§ 6106)

In count eleven, Eastman is charged with violating section 6106 by telling the crowd of protesters at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, “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 [Vice President] Pence did not deserve to be in office if he did not delay the counting of votes.”(NDC, p. 33.) OCTC alleged that these statements were false and misleading and “contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol in an effort to intimidate [Vice President] Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding, when such harm was foreseeable.”(Ibid.) The court does not find Eastman culpable of the misconduct alleged in this count.

[OCS: Had the Judge found something different in this count, it would have been a direct challenge to Eastman’s First Amendment rights under the Constitution.] 

<Source: Case No. SBC-23-O-30029-YDR; DECISION AND ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT>