A lawyers’ group filed an ethics complaint against Rudy Giuliani with New York’s courts, calling for him to be investigated and his law license suspended over his work promoting former President Donald Trump’s false allegations over the 2020 election.
Lawyers Defending American Democracy, which includes former judges and federal attorneys among its members, sent the complaint on Wednesday to the Attorney Grievance Committee of the state’s court system saying Giuliani had violated the rules of professional conduct.
“Giuliani has spearheaded a nationwide public campaign to convince the public and the courts of massive voter fraud and a stolen presidential election,” the complaint said.
The complaint called for the committee to investigate Giuliani’s conduct, including his comments at a rally before rioters stormed into the U.S. Capitol, and to suspend his law license immediately while any investigation is being done.
A message was left with the committee seeking comment. An investigation would be the first step in a process that could lead to a disbarment.
Another complaint against Giuliani was filed earlier in January by New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, a Democrat, who asked that disbarring Giuliani be taken up for consideration.
The New York State Bar Association separately has opened an inquiry into whether he should be expelled from that organization, which is a voluntary membership organization.
An email seeking comment was sent to Giuliani’s representative.
The New York Times reported that on his radio show on Thursday, Giuliani said “the whole purpose of this is to disbar me from my exercising my right of free speech and defending my client, because they can’t fathom the fact that maybe, just maybe, they may be wrong.”
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
investigated and his law license suspended over his work promoting former President Donald Trump’s false allegations over the 2020 election חס ושלום :- According to this warped logic, every attorney ever representing a murderer or criminal and espousing some crazy theory as to why his/her client’s crime was justified should also be investigated & suspended, and clearly then the entire legal system would be overhauled major way.
@147: Exactly what I was gonna write.
147 and Yashar,
You are both very stupid.
In court a lawyer can plead that his client is innocent, no matter what the truth is. If he convinces the jury, good for him. If he doesn’t convince the jury, the judge will decide his sentence. Case closed!
In this case he was not acting as a defense lawyer, he was an accomplice in committing the crime. He was helping his client to sell a lie and incite violence. Don’t you see the difference??
@Rif: Just clarifying, are you actually unaware that Rudy was acting in the capacity of a defense lawyer? Or are you perhaps unaware that defense lawyers act in that capacity both in and out of the courtroom? Or are you simply a liar?
Either way — you D-U-M-B, my guy.
“False charge”
Please explain to me the following:
* The security camera video from the State Farm Arena in Fulton County
* The forensic report of the dominion machines from Anterim County, Michigan
* The various eye witness accounts in Michigan, Penssylvania, Georgia and elsewhere about intimidation, counting ballots multiple times, etc.
* Why observers in Mich, Penn, Georgia & elsewhere were kept 20 feet or more away from where the ballots were being processed and counted
* The various ‘edicts’, ‘decrees’ and ‘decisions’ in Wisconsin, Penn, Georgia and elsewhere which seem to be illegal and/or constitutional which loosened the laws on mail-in ballots, absentee ballots, processing dates, etc.
* Why Maricopa county in Arizona fought against having the Dominion machines forensically audited
* Why there still has not been a forensic audit of the ballots in Fulton county (even though the Georgian State Senate Judiciary committee requested one)
* And more…
When you can offer me a reasonable, logically argued rational explanation of the above when can then talk about ‘false charges’. The logical argument can be your own, from a judge, investigator, government representative or anyone else you want — the only requirement is that it is logical, reasonable and relates to the facts detailed above. No PROCLAMATIONS, DECLRATIONS or STATEMENTS that the argument does exist — rather it has to be the actual argument itself.
Good luck — I won’t hold my breath.
Giuliani at this point is more than a delusional liar, he is an insurrectionist and incited a mob to murder and sedition. He deserves investigation and prosecution.
You may not incite violence in a court of law.
If a lawyer flat out lies repeatedly in a court of law, he also goes over an ethics line and can get disbarred. Misconduct. Their goal is to bring up “reasonable doubt” not to create lies.
And never once did Giuliani present his case in a court of law, only the court of public opinion, and he can lie there. Hence, the discussion of disbarring him for incitement.
Wrong again Yashar,
A lawyer can do his job outside of the courtroom, but he can’t be an accomplice in crime. If he helps the criminal to perpetrate the crime, he is not acting as a lawyer, he is acting as a criminal. Imagine if a lawyer helped his client hide the body that he murdered, is he still a lawyer????
Rudy perpetuated the lie, and incited the people to fight. Rudy was an accomplice in crime. You don’t know the difference between a crime and a defense D-U-M-B-O.
And I am no guy, Rif is short for Rifka.
@Rif: First of all, sorry, I thought “Rif” was a reference to the rishon commonly known as the Rif. (Not that I would refer to the Rif himself as a “guy,” obviously.) Secondly, I see that in my haste I misunderstood your (admittedly very clearly stated) argument. I didn’t catch that you meant Rudy is guilty of sedition; I thought you were saying that he was only guilty of furthering his client’s supposed lie. Now, regarding the lie, see my points above. Regarding sedition, however, I agree with you in theory. Sedition is not a legal argument; it is a crime in and of itself. However, I think it is beyond obvious that neither our great, beloved former president nor Rudy ever meant that people should actually commit terroristic treason against the country. I believe it is obvious that they thought it was understood that they never meant for an actual physical “combat” (to use the word bandied about from Giuliani). And to top it all off, you’re a D-U-M-B-E-R-I-N-A, so there. Just kidding, I’m sorry I took your disgusting bait when you referred to me as “very stupid.” Can we not have a contest now about who can stretch out the word dumb into a longer epithet? Thanks! Sorry I misunderstood what you said above!