Eastman California Ethics Trial to Proceed Despite Criminal Case

Attorney John Eastman, defending against racketeering charges connected to the campaign to overturn 2020 election results for former President Donald Trump, lost his bid on Friday to stay his trial on ethics and California law violations.

State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland rejected his request to stay the California Bar’s disciplinary charges accusing Eastman of violating 11 ethical and statutory obligations in helping to undermine the 2020 presidential election, citing public protection. The judge said at an Aug. 17 status conference that she wasn’t inclined to completely stay proceedings, and on Thursday tentatively denied motion on Fifth Amendment grounds.

Normally a disciplinary proceeding would be paused when an attorney is facing criminal indictment on the same issues to avoid self-incrimination concerns, Roland wrote. But here, given Eastman’s standing as “an attorney and constitutional scholar,” his deposition before the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the US Capitol on Dec. 9, 2021, and his appearance before the Fulton County, Ga., grand jury, “it’s clear that he’s acquainted with exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege"—which he has exercised more than 145 times in connection with his actions surrounding the 2020 election—but chose instead “to go ahead with the trial in this instance without utilizing those rights or pursuing a delay in the proceedings.”

Eastman “knowingly made the choice to testify in this disciplinary proceeding and never asserted the Fifth Amendment here,” testifying for more than eight-and-a-half hours, Roland wrote.

Moreover, a federal judge in California last year held that Eastman and Trump “more likely than not” committed criminal conduct and the Jan. 6 committee referred Eastman to the Department of Justice, Roland said.

The one-time Chapman University law dean wrote memos advancing theories that then-Vice President Mike Pence could declare Trump the victor or delay Congress certifying the 2020 results.

Where Things Stand

Roland, during an Aug. 17 status conference, said a petition for interlocutory review is “always a possibility in connection with any ruling on anything.” Having ruled, “everybody knows where things stand” and the parties can figure out how they want to proceed.

The trial resumed Thursday after six days of hearings in June, continued Friday, and is set to resume Sept. 5. Eastman’s attorney Randall Miller, when the judge announced her tentative decision Thursday, said the recess gives the defense “an opportunity to look at what those options are,” which may include an interlocutory petition to the State Bar Court’s Review Department.

The ultimate disposition of Eastman’s law license will rest with the California Supreme Court, which oversees lawyer licensing and discipline.

Trump, meanwhile, was indicted Aug. 1 on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Eastman wasn’t specifically named in that case. But a Georgia state grand jury on Aug. 14 indicted Trump, Eastman, and 17 others on racketeering and other charges in connection with efforts to allegedly pressure election officials there to change the results.

Eastman was charged with nine counts, including urging a public official to violate their oath, conspiracy to impersonate a public officer, forgery, and filing false documents.

“The court has made no predeterminations regarding this case, but if Respondent is culpable of the conduct alleged, public protection necessitates that this case be disposed of in a timely matter, particularly as there is an upcoming election in 2024,” Roland said.

Public Protection

Roland on Aug. 17 asked about the courts where Eastman has filed cases involving elections and voting- and election-related constitutional questions.

The State Bar Court’s “mission is that of protecting the public and ensuring that individuals who are officers in the state carry ethical obligations of a licensed attorney in California.” Roland therefore wondered “if he’s continuing to give legal advice regarding election-related issues, if he’s continuing to file pleadings related to constitutional election.”.

After a brief break, Miller said Eastman filed lawsuits in the Central District of California and Colorado in July.

While the discipline case proceeds, Eastman’s page on the California Bar’s website will still list a consumer alert.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel represents the bar. Miller Law Associates represents Eastman.

The case is In the Matter of John Charles Eastman, Cal. State Bar, No. SBC-23-O-30029, order 8/25/23.