Page 1
Disbarment Draws Closer for Ex-Trump Lawyer Eastman
State Bar Review Department Embraces Recommendation of Hearing Judge
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The Review Department of the State Bar Court has affirmed a recommendation that former Chapman University School of Law Dean John Eastman be disbarred over his role in challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election on behalf of his then-client, President Donald Trump.
Eastman sought review of a March 2024 decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland who determined that Eastman violated 10 out of 11 charged counts of misconduct alleged by the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (“OCTC”) and recommended that the constitutional scholar be disbarred.
Roland’s 128-page decision found that, among other misdeeds, Eastman made misrepresentations in court filings and in media appearances relating to the integrity of the 2020 election without having supporting evidence of fraud. Roland gave weight to his lack of disciplinary history but found that multiple aggravating factors—including a lack of remorse or recognition of wrongdoing—weighed in favor of a recommendation of disbarment.
For his part, Eastman disputes all of Roland’s culpability findings and asserts due process violations as well as First Amendment protections. The former dean claims that his case is not a “run-of-the-mill” disciplinary matter but involves highly political and partisan issues, and points out that the hearing officer, prosecutors, and bar officials who sought his disbarment have ties to the Democrat party.
In a decision authored by Judge W. Kearse McGill, a three-judge panel on Friday found disbarment to be appropriate, saying “[i]n a democracy nothing can be more fundamental than the orderly transfer of power that occurs after a fair and unimpeded electoral process as established by law” and declared:
“[W]e reject Eastman’s First Amendment defenses and his various due process claims.…Due to the serious nature and extent of Eastman’s misconduct and the weight of aggravating circumstances in relation to mitigation, we recommend that Eastman be disbarred.”
The California Supreme Court has the last word on disbarment but rarely deviates from State Bar recommendations.
Orwellian Prosecution
In his opening brief, Eastman alleged:
“[T]his prosecution should never have taken place. It is, rather, a manifestation of George Orwell’s dystopic depiction of authoritarianism—statements by the Government, no matter how demonstrably false or suspect, must be accepted as truth….Although ‘lying before the law’ is what the Bar has charged and what the Hearing Department has found, here it quite clearly means in the circumstances of this case that Dr. Eastman simply espoused views on fiercely disputed issues of fact and open questions of constitutional interpretation that are contrary to the government’s preferred narrative. That may be ‘lying before the law’ in a…socialist world, but it is not, or certainly should not be, considered as such in the constitutional republic of the United States.”
He further noted that Roland has made political donations in support of Democrat-party nominees and challenges the manner in which State Bar Court judges are appointed in highly-partisan California.
Unpersuaded, McGill opined that no due process violation had been shown, saying:
“Eastman states his case is unique, calling it ‘the most politicized disbarment proceeding in California’s history,’ but his belief is not evidence nor does it create an appearance of impropriety regarding the hearing judge. Because he identifies no evidence other than his subjective belief, we reject his claims of bias as speculative and conclusory.”
The judges also found no merit to his claims that Roland “routinely badgered and harassed him” during the 34-day trial.
First Amendment Claims
As to his First Amendment claims, McGill noted that “[w]hile these rights are fundamental, they must be calibrated to align with the unique role attorneys play in the administration of justice.” With this “calibration” in mind, he remarked:
“The evidence and testimony at trial established that Eastman made multiple false and misleading statements in his professional capacity as an attorney for President Trump in court filings and other written statements, as well as in conversations with others and in public remarks.”
He continued:
“Furthermore, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is employed as a tool in the commission of a crime….Count one…charges Eastman with conduct and statements made in furtherance of a criminal scheme, i.e., conspiring to promote and assist President Trump in executing a strategy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states….Attorneys do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with clients for purposes that are unlawful, criminal, or fraudulent.”
Election Administration
Some of the misconduct alleged against Eastman arose out of an intervention motion in a U.S. Supreme Court case initiated by the State of Texas, in which the state asked the court to declare that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin had unconstitutionally administered the 2020 presidential election, and asserted that their respective electoral votes should not be counted.
In his December 2020 intervention motion on behalf of then-President Trump, Eastman expressly adopted the Texas complaint’s allegations.
Later that month, he filed a verified complaint in the Northern District of Georgia, which incorporated by reference a previously filed action and its supporting expert declarations, and asserted that election officials permitted unqualified individuals to vote and that certain ballots, secreted in suitcases, were counted outside the presence of observers.
Prosecutors with the State Bar pointed out that days before the Georgia matter was filed, an attorney with the Office of White House Counsel, Eric Herschmann, told Eastman that some election experts—including a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor with elections and research methodology expertise—denied the factual assertions in the declarations incorporated into the case by reference
Before the Georgia case was filed, investigators had concluded that no suitcases of ballots had been hidden and no improper counting occurred.
Knowing Falsities
Eastman was charged with knowing that the assertions in the Texas complaint that there was “rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional actions” were false and misleading. McGill agreed with this assessment, commenting:
“[He] ignored various statements regarding the election, such as former United States Attorney General William Barr’s December 1, 2020 conclusion that insufficient evidence existed of widespread outcome determinative fraud. Eastman also believed that statements from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) about the integrity of the 2020 election were ‘laughable.’ ”
As to the Georgia matter, he opined:
“[T]he record shows Eastman knew there were serious factual errors by the experts, and this issue was made known to him before the…action was filed.”
Media Statements
As to statements made by Eastman on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and in a piece published in the Claremont Institute’s “The American Mind,” questioning the integrity of the election, McGill said:
“OCTC met its burden of proof that Eastman’s statements were not made with gross negligence but were intentionally false and misleading statements. Thus, the record supports an intentional moral turpitude finding….The record supports the conclusion that Eastman knew no basis existed for the assertion that there was sufficient absentee ballot fraud to alter the outcome of the 2020 election. Based upon our review of the record,…no massive evidence of either illegality or fraud existed in the states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. As was evident throughout the trial, Eastman simply rejected information and court decisions that were contrary to his views.”
He was also charged with encouraging former Vice President Mike Pence to disregard electoral votes, knowing that his legal advice lacked a reasonable basis in law. McGill wrote:
“Eastman worked to create an appearance of a legitimate dispute when in fact none existed…. Eastman worked to create an appearance of a legitimate dispute when in fact none existed.”
Jan. 6 Allegations
Like Roland, the Review Department found that a charge seeking to hold Eastman responsible for the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was unsupported.
OCTC backed the recommendation of disbarment but sought clarification from the Review Department as to whether Eastman’s misrepresentations were, as it claims, intentional or reckless, and argued that Roland should have assigned additional aggravation for significant harm. Yesterday’s decision included findings of intentional misstatements but declined to find significant harm.
However, the judges said:
“While we agree with the hearing judge that Eastman has failed to accept responsibility for his wrongdoing, we cannot agree with the weight she assigned here….Eastman continues to fully deny his many unethical actions….Because he fails to recognize his ethical obligations and views any scrutiny of them as an attack on him, we assign only nominal mitigation for Eastman’s absence of a prior record…despite his 28 years of being an attorney.”
Either side can seek review of Friday’s decision by the California Supreme Court. While the disbarment recommendation remains in place, Eastman is on involuntary inactive bar status.
Presiding Judge Richard Honn and Judge Tamara Ribas joined in the opinion.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company