Court Suspends Giuliani’s Law License, Citing Trump Election Lies

Authored by nytimes.com and submitted by hoosakiwi

At least three ethics complaints had been publicly filed against Mr. Giuliani, including one earlier this year by a group of prominent lawyers who accused him of abusing the court system to undermine democracy. It is not known which complaint, if any, triggered the New York court’s investigation.

Mr. Giuliani is also licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., and the decision in New York could set off disciplinary proceedings there, although that is not automatic.

It is rare for the court to temporarily suspend lawyers for making unethical public statements, according to lawyers who specialize in disciplinary proceedings, and it is more common in cases in which lawyers are accused of stealing money from clients.

The practical impact of the decision was not clear. Although Mr. Giuliani started his own law firm in 2019, it has been decades since he regularly argued in courtrooms. Before Mr. Giuliani became Mr. Trump’s lawyer, he was running his own security consulting business. More recently, he has hosted a radio show and appeared in cigar commercials.

Still, the suspension marked another stunning chapter in the rise and fall of Mr. Giuliani, once a legal and political star. He had enjoyed near-hero status when, as New York City mayor, he led the city through the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Before that, he was a hard-charging prosecutor who was known for battling organized crime and corrupt politicians. But he is now being investigated by the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, the same office he once led, and faces the prospect of being banned from the legal profession in which he has worked for more than five decades.

The federal investigation into Mr. Giuliani centers on his dealings in Ukraine before the 2020 election, when he sought to damage President Biden’s credibility. In April, F.B.I. agents seized Mr. Giuliani’s cellphones and computers, an extraordinary action to take against a lawyer for a former president.

gh0st0ft0mj04d on June 24th, 2021 at 18:43 UTC »

THEY HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN THE FOUR SEASONS TOTAL LANDSCAPING PARKING LOT

NeverForget

bluehealer8 on June 24th, 2021 at 16:22 UTC »

Whoa. That is some major stuff right there. I remember that when things were blowing up in the Trump circle someone asked Giuliani if he was worried about Trump turning on him, and he quipped “Nah, I have insurance.” His lawyer jumped in and basically told him to shut up and also he was just kidding.

Please, please, please let him cash on that insurance.

Please.

nWo1997 on June 24th, 2021 at 15:46 UTC »

A New York appellate court suspended Rudolph W. Giuliani’s law license on Thursday after a disciplinary panel found that he made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements about the 2020 election as Donald J. Trump’s personal attorney.

The court wrote in a 33-page decision that Mr. Giuliani’s conduct threatened “the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law.”

Mr. Giuliani helped lead Mr. Trump’s legal challenge to the election results, arguing without merit that the vote had been rife with fraud and that voting machines had been rigged.

“We conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent 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,” the decision read.

Lying to courts is a big no-no for lawyers. It's actually one of the lawyering rules that you can't lie to the courts.

EDIT: There's a bit of understandable confusion, seeing how Defense Attorneys are tasked with getting their clients off zealously advocating for their clients and/or ensuring the prosecution doesn't do anything shady. I hope this clarifies it.

Lawyers can't lie, but they can say that the other side failed to prove enough, and demand that the other side prove every fact necessary to win. Not so much "my client didn't do it" as it is "the State has not met its burden of proving that my client did it."

EDIT 2: /u/gearheadsub92's description is a bit better than "getting their clients off."