LAL #037 — Giuliani's Suspension: New York State's Newest Assault on the First Amendment

<p>Share, Like, Post, Tweet, Repost, Retweet, and start a conversation. </p> <p>The State of New York recently suspended Rudy Giuliani’s law license on an interim basis in one of the most shocking decisions I’ve read in quite some time.<br /> <br /> The court concluded, agreeing with bar regulators, that Giuliani posed an immediate threat to the public justifying an abrupt pulling of his license absent more formal hearings. </p> <p>Why? He made false statements to the court, to the public and to the world about his client’s theory that the 2020 election was stolen. </p> <p>His client? Donald J. Trump, of course.<br /> <br /> Lawyers do not have the right to speak as freely as do non-lawyers. There are rules of professional conduct that limit attorney speech.<br /> <br /> But this ruling makes a mockery of those rules.<br /> <br /> Did Giuliani knowingly make false statements to the court? Perhaps. But it was in the context of his advocacy; he was advancing his client’s theory of the case. </p> <p>He did not mislead the court as to case law, which indeed is the Cardinal Sin for lawyers. He was guilty of inconsistency and over-promising in argument about what he could offer as evidence. That’s a common failing. If the trial judge thinks he over-stepped a boundary, that judge can impose sanctions. </p> <p>But suspension months after the case ended on grounds of protecting the public? There are pig sties in upstate New York that smell better than this.<br /> <br /> There are two (2) other claims from the State: (i) that Giuliani made false statements to third parties when he appeared on television, the radio and elsewhere; and (ii) that Giuliani behaved in a way that led regulators to doubt his fitness to practice law.<br /> <br /> This is risible. Lawyers are free to speak to the public. The only professional limit is on speech carrying a substantial likelihood to prejudice a public proceeding. Giuliani did nothing of the sort.<br /> <br /> This is cancel culture in judicial robes and it is terrifying. I doubt these