C. Deterring Frivolous Cases Lawyers have brought a significant number of cases before the courts without any supporting evidence; some have involved insulting language and attacks by courts and lawyers against each other. In the United States, this proved particularly problematic in a series of cases following the 2020 presidential elections. Much like the Kenyan Supreme Court, U.S. courts have pushed back against such attacks on them. The cases discussed below illustrate how courts sanction attorneys who bring frivolous lawsuits in hopes of deterring similar cases in the future. Influential lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made numerous false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election results after his client, Donald Trump, lost to Joseph Biden. In light of those statements, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department in New York State opened an investigation into Giuliani’s conduct. During the investigation, the Grievance Committee made a motion for Giuliani’s interim suspension from the practice of law – a “serious remedy” available only when it is “immediately necessary to protect the public from the respondent’s violation of the [New York] Rules [of Professional Conduct].” 56 Giuliani argued that there was no immediate threat to the public because he would no longer discuss the subject in public or make statements about the election as an attorney. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, agreed with the petitioner in Matter of Giuliani, holding that Giuliani made the false statements to “improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client.” Pointing to Giuliani’s “persistent and pervasive” dissemination of false claims, the Court stated that “[t]he seriousness of respondent's uncontroverted misconduct cannot be overstated.” The Court held that an interim suspension of Giuliani from the practice of law was warranted, given that his conduct was ongoing and posed an “immediate threat of harm” to the public by “corroding public trust in democracy.” The holding did not implicate Giuliani’s freedom of speech because attorney speech is subject to regulation to protect the public from potential reliance on a legal professional engaging in knowing misconduct. 57 Relatedly, in July 2023, a District of Columbia Bar Association disciplinary committee recommended Giuliani’s disbarment because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The Bar Association relied heavily on the Matter of Giuliani case when filing this disciplinary charge. The committee decided unanimously that Giuliani’s misconduct “sadly transcends all his past accomplishments” and that it was “unparalleled in its destructive purpose and effect.” 58 Similarly, lawyers representing a Michigan voter in the 2020 U.S. presidential election made false and misleading statements in King v. Whitmer, a case challenging the election results in Michigan. Petitioners claimed that the In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 2021-00506 (2021). Id. at pp. 6-7. 58 In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani, No. 22-BD-027 (2023). 56 57 17