Post by BearClause on Apr 30, 2024 19:02:10 GMT -5
I don’t think it’s even close.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/24628521-2024-04-29-disciplinary-counsels-proposed-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-1
During closing argument, the Chair asked Disciplinary Counsel to address what lesser sanction would be appropriate if the Hearing Committee rejects the recommendation of disbarment. While we recognize an obligation generally to assist the Committee, for two reasons we cannot comply with this request—other than to list the factors the Court has said should be taken into consideration, which we have done. First, the practical reason that we cannot help the Committee further is that, with the exceptions of Mr. Giuliani in this jurisdiction and Mr. Eastman in California, no lawyer of whom we are aware has engaged in comparable misconduct. The recommended discipline for Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman, although charged with violation of different rules, was disbarment. Second, we believe it would be inconsistent with our duty to the disciplinary system and the profession to even suggest that a sanction other than disbarment should be contemplated for this respondent. Mr. Clark’s misconduct was part of a concerted effort to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 presidential election. He attempted to usurp the leadership at the Justice Department and misuse the Department’s authority to help accomplish that result, despite all evidence contradicting his position. He had to know that what he was doing was wrong. But Mr. Clark is clearly unwilling to recognize the extreme magnitude of his misconduct. That refusal should be unsettling to us all. It—along with the gravity of potential consequences of his misconduct to the foundations of our country—supports disbarment and only disbarment as the right and necessary sanction to uphold the integrity of the courts and the profession, to protect the public, while deterring Mr. Clark and others from engaging in this sort of misconduct.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/24628521-2024-04-29-disciplinary-counsels-proposed-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-1
During closing argument, the Chair asked Disciplinary Counsel to address what lesser sanction would be appropriate if the Hearing Committee rejects the recommendation of disbarment. While we recognize an obligation generally to assist the Committee, for two reasons we cannot comply with this request—other than to list the factors the Court has said should be taken into consideration, which we have done. First, the practical reason that we cannot help the Committee further is that, with the exceptions of Mr. Giuliani in this jurisdiction and Mr. Eastman in California, no lawyer of whom we are aware has engaged in comparable misconduct. The recommended discipline for Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman, although charged with violation of different rules, was disbarment. Second, we believe it would be inconsistent with our duty to the disciplinary system and the profession to even suggest that a sanction other than disbarment should be contemplated for this respondent. Mr. Clark’s misconduct was part of a concerted effort to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 presidential election. He attempted to usurp the leadership at the Justice Department and misuse the Department’s authority to help accomplish that result, despite all evidence contradicting his position. He had to know that what he was doing was wrong. But Mr. Clark is clearly unwilling to recognize the extreme magnitude of his misconduct. That refusal should be unsettling to us all. It—along with the gravity of potential consequences of his misconduct to the foundations of our country—supports disbarment and only disbarment as the right and necessary sanction to uphold the integrity of the courts and the profession, to protect the public, while deterring Mr. Clark and others from engaging in this sort of misconduct.
