Previous 1 / 16 Next

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY _______________________________ : In the Matter of : : RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, : : Respondent : : A Temporarily Suspended Member : of the Bar of the District of : Columbia Court of Appeals : Bar Number: 237255 : _______________________________: Disciplinary Docket No. 2020-D253 SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES The disciplinary proceedings instituted by this petition are based upon conduct that violates the standards governing the practice of law in the District of Columbia as prescribed by D.C. Bar Rule X and D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 2(b). Jurisdiction for this disciplinary proceeding is prescribed by D.C. Bar Rule XI. Pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 1(a), jurisdiction is found because: 1. Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, having been admitted by motion on December 2, 1976, and assigned Bar. No. 237255. He took Inactive (non-practicing) status on December 12, 2002. On July 7, 2021, the Court of Appeals temporarily suspended Respondent based on the order of the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the respondent violated D.C. Bar Rules X and XI, § 2(b) by filing a frivolous lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania, which requires him to be sanctioned under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.

Alleged Acts: The D.C. Bar Association alleges that respondent filed a lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania that asserted issues without a non-frivolous basis in law and fact. The D.C. Bar Association also alleges that respondent engaged in conduct that was “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Procedural history: Petitioner has brought ethics charges against the respondent at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility.

Summary: This litigation emerges in light of disciplinary actions initiated by the New York State Bar Association against the respondent. The respondent filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania concerning the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, where he represented Plaintiffs Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Trump Campaign”), Lawrence Roberts and David John Henry against the defendants Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the bipartisan boards of elections of Allegheny County, Centre County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, Northampton County and Philadelphia County. In the Pennsylvania proceedings, respondent’s amended complaints alleged “equal protection violations because elections officials in some Pennsylvania counties provided notice to their mail-in voters who had cast deficient ballots and extended an opportunity to cure ballot deficiencies,” and “a violation of the Electors and Election Clauses of the Constitution because the notice-and-cure procedures permitted in some counties were not authorized by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.” The Supreme Court of the State of New York found that Mr. Giuliani had violated Rules 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. New York Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(h) differs slightly from Model Rule 8.4 as it provides that “[a] lawyer . . . shall not . . . engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.”1 According to the petitioner in the present case, the respondent sought “extraordinary” relief in the U.S. District Court via multiple baseless emergency orders. One order would prohibit the certification of the results of the Presidential General Election. Another order would prohibit the certification of results that respondent claims did not comply with the state election code. A third order would require the defendant counties to invalidate improper ballots that voters did not cure during the appropriate timeframe. A fourth order would have directed the defendant counties to verify and confirm that all ballots were validly cast in compliance with state law. A fifth order would have declared that the results of the 2020 Presidential Election in Pennsylvania were defective and would have provided the Pennsylvania General Assembly with the ability to choose the state’s electors. A final order would have declared Donald Trump as the winner of the legal votes cast in Pennsylvania and designated Trump as the recipient of the state’s electors. The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania could not identify any legal precedent where the sought relief was as drastic as respondent’s requested relief and so ruled against him. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit could not find any authority for the drastic nature of the relief sought and upheld the decision of the lower court. The petitioner in this case also alleges that the respondent made assertions of election fraud to the District Court to justify the extraordinary relief he sought. After making what the petitioners called “conclusory accusations,” the respondent admitted that he was “alleging a fraud.” Petitioner alleges that “[t]he affidavits, declarations, and statements that respondent provided to the District Court and other bodies were (a) unsupported, (b) unrelated to Trump voters, (c) involve conduct outside the seven Defendant Counties, and (d) by their own terms, were isolated incidents that could not have affected the presidential election’s results by offsetting the Biden majority of over 80,000 votes.” The petitioner alleges that the respondent had no legal basis for his claims that the Pennsylvania counties’ notice-and-cure procedures violated the equal protections of Lawrence Roberts and John David Henry. The petitioner also alleges that there was no legal basis for the respondent’s accusations of equal protection violations because the Pennsylvania counties at issue “established different physical boundaries (in facilities that varied in space and accommodations) for candidate representatives who were present when mail-in ballots were tallied” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the petitioner alleges that there was no legal basis for respondent’s contention that due process was violated because mail-in voters were provided with notice-and-cure opportunities. On the heels of this litigation and after the Supreme Court of New York held that the respondent violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, New York State suspended the respondent from the practice of law. The Supreme Court found that “false statements were knowingly made, as shown by the absence of a reasonable basis for them,” which “adversely reflected on the attorney’s fitness to practice.” Because the Supreme Court found that the respondent’s conduct “was ongoing and posed an immediate threat of harm to the public by corroding public trust in democracy,” the Court held that an “interim suspension . . . was warranted.” As of this writing, the disciplinary proceedings in New York have not concluded. Consequently, the District of Columbia Bar Association has temporarily suspended the respondent until the end of disciplinary proceedings in New York.

Conclusion: Case is pending.

Legal Issue(s)

Civil Procedure
Disputing Results

Applicable Law(s): D.C. Bar Rule X; D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 2(b); In re Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S. 3d 266

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Apr 4, 2022

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.82276938276623

Longitude: -77.01877316864336

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Docket No. 2020_D253_Giuliani.pdf
english
Download View