Previous 17 / 33 Next

all ballots cast in the presidential audit.9 The hand audit, which relied exclusively on the printed text on the ballot-marking device, or bubbled-in the choice of the absentee ballot, confirmed the results of the election with a zero percent risk limit. Respondent's statement that the vote count was inaccurate, without referencing the hand audits, was misleading. By law, this audit was required to take place following the election and be completed no later than December 31, 2020 (Ga Ann § 21-2-498). Respondent’s statements were made while the hand audit was proceeding and after it concluded. We understand that Dominion has sued respondent for defamation in connection with his claims about their voting machines (Complaint, US Dominion, Inc. v Giuliani, 1:21-cv00213, US District Court, District of Columbia [Washington], January 25, 2021). Consequently, we do not reach the issue of whether respondent’s claims about the Dominion voting machines were false, nor do we need to. In view of the hand counts conducted in Georgia, we find that respondent’s statements about the results of the Georgia election count are false. Respondent provides no basis in this record for disputing the hand count audit. Respondent made these statements at least on December 3, 2020 when appearing before the Georgia Legislature’s Senate Judiciary Committee, during a December 6, 2020 episode of the radio show Uncovering the Truth, during a December 22, 2020 episode of his radio show Chat with the Mayor, he alluded to it in a December 27, 2020 episode of In this motion, because the AGC only relies on the audit referred to in the Georgia Secretary of State’s January 6, 2021 letter to Congress, we only consider this one audit. Georgia’s election results were, however, actually audited three times, and no evidence of widespread fraud was discovered (Daniel Funke, Fact check: No evidence of fraud in Georgia election results (June 1, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/01/fact-check-georgiaaudit-hasnt-found-30-000-fake-ballots/5253184001/ [last accessed June 12, 2021]). 9 17

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani, an Attorney (United States)

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether Mr. Giuliani’s conduct, as a lawyer perpetuating false statements about widespread voter fraud during the 2020 United States presidential election, violated New York's professional rules of conduct?

Alleged Acts: During the 2020 United States presidential election, candidate and president at the time, Donald J. Trump, hired Rudy Giuliani as his personal attorney. The Attorney Grievance Committee relies on claims that Mr. Giuliani made false and misleading statements casting doubt on the integrity of the 2020 presidential election results. These statements were made at press conferences, state legislative hearings, podcasts, radio broadcasts, television appearances, and one court appearance. On November 17, 2020, Mr. Giuliani appeared as the attorney for Donald J. Trump at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He was admitted to practice law pro hac vice based on his New York license. Mr. Giuliani claimed to be pursuing a fraud claim when he was not. Mr. Giuliani persisted to allege conclusory claims of nationwide voter fraud in Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions over the course of several years. Additionally, outside the courtroom at state legislatures, radio stations, and podcasts, Mr. Giuliani claimed there were fewer absentee ballots were mailed to voters than the total number of absentee ballots recorded in the 2020 election, which was false. Furthermore, Mr. Giuliani repeatedly stated there were 600 to 700 thousand fabricated mail-in ballots that were never sent to voters prior to election day. Mr. Giuliani also repeatedly stated that dead people “voted” in the city of Philadelphia to discredit the results of the vote. Among other instances, Giuliani falsely claimed that there was video evidence depicting the State of Georgia election officials illegally counting mail-in ballots. Mr. Giuliani then made false and misleading statements that “illegal aliens” voted in Arizona during the election. All of these claims were an attempt to continue the narrative that the election was stole from his client, Donald J. Trump.

Procedural history: Attorneys licensed to practice law in New York are subject to professional rules of conduct. Each department of the Appellate Divisions of the New York Supreme Court (the district courts in New York) is responsible to enforce the professional rules of conduct. The Attorney Grievances Committees in each jurisdiction are charged with investigating misconduct various means. If the Attorney Grievance Committee concludes the lawyer may face discipline, the matter is brough before the Appellate Division. The Court is then responsible for reviewing the record and determining whether any misconduct occurred, and if so, the appropriate discipline. Sometimes, the Committee may make a motion for an attorney’s interim suspension, a serious remedy only available when it’s deemed necessary to protect the public from the lawyer’s violation of the professional rules of conduct. The standard in finding an interim suspend is based on the uncontroverted evidence of professional conduct. Uncontroverted attorney misconduct occurs in a few scenarios: (1) when a lawyer makes a false statement of face to a tribunal, while representing a client or law to a third person (2) when a lawyer engages in conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, or (3) when a lawyer engages in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

Summary: The Attorney Grievance Committee held that Mr. Giuliani “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.” Such false statements improperly bolstered Mr. Giuliani’s narrative that widespread voter fraud resulted in his client, President Donald J. Trump, losing the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Mr. Giuliani argued that the investigation into his conduct violates his First Amendment right of free speech. He simply did not attack the constitutionality of the professional rules, but that they are unconstitutional as they apply to him. The court responded that speech by an attorney is held to a higher standard of regulation than speech by others due to their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the legal profession is maintained. Mr. Giuliani also argued that even if his statements were false and misleading, he did not make them knowing they were false. The court agreed with Giuliani that the rules of professional conduct in question only proscribe statements that are knowingly made, as shown in rules 3.3 and 4.1 However, rule 8.4(c) contains no requirement of knowledge. Overall, Mr. Giuliani’s arguments did not change prevent the committee from further finding violations of professional misconduct to warrant interim suspension of his license to practice law.

Conclusion: Mr. Giuliani’s conduct is a threat to public interests and therefore, warrants interim suspension from practicing law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): New York Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.3; rule 4.1; & rule 8.4.

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Trial Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Jun 24, 2021

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.90371529

Longitude: -77.06409858

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Matter of Giuliani (2021-00506) PC.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani, an Attorney (United States)

Primary Documents

Notifications