Eastman, Clark, and other conservative attorneys are facing disciplinary actions and professional repercussions for their involvement in challenging election outcomes and making political statements. They argue that the legal profession is increasingly targeting lawyers on the right more than those on the left.
They fear that legal proceedings are being used to intimidate lawyers and defendants who hold conservative views, making it difficult for them to find representation. This has led to concerns about the politicization of lawyer disciplinary actions and the bias within the legal profession.
Some legal experts, like Ty Clevenger and John Malcolm, believe that there is a political bias in the legal profession that skews towards the left and is worsening. They argue that rules like Rule 8.2 from the American Bar Association disproportionately affect conservative attorneys by restricting their freedom of speech.
For example, Christopher Crowley was disciplined by the Florida Bar for making disparaging remarks about his opponent during a political campaign. The Bar accused him of promoting an unlawful raffle lottery and attacking his opponent’s religion, among other violations.
Conservative attorneys like Eastman, Clark, and Crowley believe that the legal profession is becoming increasingly hostile to those with conservative views, leading to professional consequences and threats. They argue that rules and disciplinary actions are being used to silence conservative voices and limit their ability to practice law freely. Crowley expressed that he was unaware and unconcerned about Ms. Fox’s religious beliefs, if any, and was simply sharing an article that he did not write regarding her family’s ties to the PLO, which he views as a terrorist organization. He criticized the Florida Bar for regulating political speech, stating that he provided evidence and news articles when calling Ms. Fox “corrupt,” and now the Florida Bar is restricting his ability to do so. Rule 8.2, typically applied to judicial candidates, was strangely used in Mr. Crowley’s case, according to Ms. Tarkington. Mr. Clevenger also criticized the application of ABA rules in Mr. Crowley’s case, stating that it limits free speech during political campaigns, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights. The ABA provides guideline rules for state bar associations but does not directly license or discipline lawyers. State bar associations refer to ABA rules when disciplining lawyers like Mr. Crowley and Mr. Eastman. Rule 8.4(g) prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that could be considered discriminatory or harassing based on various factors, which Ms. Tarkington criticized as overly broad and potentially targeting conservative viewpoints. The Epoch Times reached out to the Florida Bar for comment but did not receive a response. The article also discusses disciplinary actions against conservative attorneys involved in election litigation, such as Mr. Eastman and Mr. Clark. Ms. Tarkington called for clarification on the rules regarding advising or assisting government and criticized the broad and ambiguous nature of the disciplinary charges. She argued that while some actions may warrant disciplinary action, not all lawyers who challenged the 2020 election results on behalf of President Trump should face consequences. The 65 Project, a bipartisan initiative, has targeted attorneys who filed lawsuits related to the 2020 election, including James Bopp Jr., for ethical complaints. The project aims to combat what they see as baseless claims to overturn the election results. Bopp, an Indiana lawyer with five decades of experience, criticizes the group for not distinguishing between lawyers who file legitimate challenges under the law and those who allegedly engage in questionable practices. He emphasizes the importance of discovery in legal cases and argues against penalizing attorneys for seeking the truth. The 65 Project’s ethics complaint against Bopp, targeting his election-related cases, is characterized as misguided by him, as it fails to recognize the difference between unfounded claims and legitimate legal efforts. The challenges faced by conservative attorneys, including harassment and difficulty finding representation, are highlighted, illustrating the polarized and politicized nature of the legal profession. Leduc emphasized Lincoln’s belief in grace and forgiveness as a way to heal a nation after a devastating war, but he expressed frustration at the lack of grace shown in response to the events of January 6. He noted the disparity in punishments between participants in the Jan. 6 riots and those involved in the 2020 George Floyd protests, highlighting a lack of forgiveness and an emphasis on vengeance in society.
He shared his experience representing a client involved in the Jan. 6 events, which led to harassment and negative backlash. He created a mural with the clippings of this harassment, reflecting on the current state of intolerance and lack of grace in the country.
Similarly, Mr. Brown spoke about his experience of facing job loss after expressing his political views. He felt targeted for his conservatism and faced challenges at his previous law firm, ultimately leading to his termination. He refused a severance package to speak out against what he perceived as discrimination.
The article also discusses the left-leaning bias in the legal profession, with studies showing a majority of law professors identifying as liberal. This bias extends to organizations like the ABA, contributing to a lack of diversity of thought in the legal industry.
Rahmani observed that there may be âcertain jurisdictions and pockets of conservatismâ within the legal profession, potentially more prevalent in conservative-leaning states. However, in his over 20 years of legal practice, he has found that the profession is mostly liberal.
This trend also applies to âtop-tier law firms,â according to Mr. Malcolm.
However, not all legal professionals share the same view. Ms. Tarkington, a law professor, does not believe in the systemic politicization of the legal profession. She mentioned that judges make a conscious effort to remain impartial.
She did point out that certain model rules, like the ABAâs 8.2 on attorney speech, could potentially be manipulated for political purposes or unfairly enforced by state bar associations.
âLawyers are essentially prevented from commenting on judicial actions, which is a significant issue that needs to be addressed,â she remarked.
Mr. Parlatore cautioned against the politicization of law, emphasizing its far-reaching consequences. He expressed concern that limiting legal representation based on political beliefs could jeopardize the fairness of the justice system.
âIt would be detrimental if only conservative lawyers could represent conservatives and vice versa. Politics should have no place in the courtroom, regardless of the side,â he emphasized to The Epoch Times.
