State Bar to Ex-Trump Lawyer: No Delays in Disbarment Trial
On August 4th, former Trump attorney John Eastman's attorneys filed a motion in the California State Bar Court begging that they delay the ongoing proceedings against their client to revoke his law license because they believed him to be an unindicted co-conspirator in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s most recent indictment and is expecting to be indicted.
On August 10th, the California State Bar filed an opposition to Eastman's Motion for Abatement. On Tuesday, the State Bar filed a supplement to their opposition following Eastman's indictment by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia.
In short, the Bar is asking to court to deny Eastman's request to delay the disbarment proceedings.
Eastman was indicted on August 14th on 41 felony criminal counts along with 18 others, including Donald Trump, for their role in trying to overturn the 2020 election in the state of Georgia.
The State Bar notes in their filing:
While it is no longer uncertain whether respondent will be indicted on criminal charges, and many of the allegations in the Fulton County indictment are related to the issues in the State Bar case, the prejudice to the State Bar and the public interest in resolving the State Bar case weigh in favor of completing the trial.
The Fulton County criminal case against respondent could take years to resolve, particularly given the number of co-defendants. As the State Bar noted in the Opposition, respondent knew that he faced possible criminal charges related to the conduct alleged in the NDC, including in Fulton County, but he chose to proceed with his State Bar trial without moving for abatement. Now, halfway through the trial, the State Bar would be highly prejudiced by delaying the completion of trial and a decision in this case for what could be several years. Delaying the further presentation of evidence also risks loss of evidence.
The State Bar notes that they have presented "extensive evidence" that Eastman "engaged in acts of dishonesty and moral turpitude in matters concerning the peaceful transition of power in 2020."
In the opposition, the Bar also remarks that Eastman has already waived his Fifth Amendment rights on many topics and that the waiver cannot be revoked "because a prosecutor subsequently begins an investigation, so long as the potentially incriminating nature of testimony was known at the time it was given."
The opposition concludes:
Balancing of all the relevant factors, abatement is not warranted in light of the substantial prejudice to the State Bar and the minimal burden on respondent in completing the trial. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the State Bar’s Opposition, the court should deny the Motion.
Read the full opposition from the State Bar here:
