There have been suggestions that the White House defense team could be brought up on bar charges for their arguments in the Senate. I have previously written that such statements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others are vindictive and ill-informed. The White House team were effective advocates for their clients and we do not disbar lawyers for making arguments or defending individuals that we do not like. I was surprised and disappointed therefore that my fellow witness from the Trump impeachment hearing, North Carolina Law Professor and CNN Legal Analyst Michael Gerhardt joined this dubious argument on CNN yesterday. The call for ethics charges seems dangerously close to the view of Lawrence O’Donnell that Trump defenders are barred from his MSNBC program because they are all “liars.”
Obviously, Gerhardt and I have substantial disagreements. Gerhardt supported the articles of impeachment based on bribery and other crimes. I opposed those four articles, which were ultimately rejected by the Committee. The Committee went forward with the two articles that I said would be legitimate but remained unproven. We later disagreed when Gerhardt declared that this impeachment was the first time that the White House closely coordinated with his own party on the handling of the impeachment trial. Those however were academic differences over the history and interpretation of prior presidential impeachment cases.
This however is different. Proponents of the impeachment seem to be lashing out at counsel and suggesting that they were acting unethically in zealously advancing the President’s defenses. After disagreeing with me that the impeachment was not “rushed” prematurely, Gerhardt asked to make a different point about the defense team. He declared
“I think what we are seeing as well is that the lawyers who presented his case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And so at one point — at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we now all know were false.”
CNN host Poppy Harlow followed up by asking Gerhardt “Do you think the D.C. Bar . . . is actually going to hold Pat Cipollone, for example, to account for this?” Gerhardt doubles down against everyone on the legal team: “I think what we are seeing as well is that the lawyers who presented his case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And so at one point — at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we now all know were false.”
It is not clear what Gerhardt believes were statements “we now all know were false.” It is incumbent on an attorney to be specific about the false representation when he is saying that “we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements.” He is saying that the entire team will be charged with ethical violations – a very serious allegation against all of these lawyers. Indeed, such a statement itself can be viewed as a matter of per se slander for impugning professional ethics and conduct. Even clients have been held liable for unsupported claims.
Moreover, bar associations are equally concerned about the ethics of impugning the conduct of other lawyers without sufficient support. Various ethics opinions warn that threatening or declaring bar violations can be unethical, particularly when (if true) you are under an obligation to actually report such conduct. If there is a lack of a good faith basis or support, it can violate professional standards.
The Gerhardt charge appears to be a loose reference to the a series of leaks and newly obtained evidence that showed that Trump was involved in seeking the investigations in May 2019. It is a curious foundation. The team did not deny that Trump wanted the investigations and cited the fact that the controversy over the Biden contract had been raised in the media since the Obama Administration. Recently, discussed emails also show that Trump was communicating on the possible freeze with other officials. Again, that is not on its face proof of any intentional false statements by counsel, who argued that Trump was long concerned about foreign assistance to the country.
There is also the report that former national security adviser John Bolton claims in his forthcoming book that Trump directed him to ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would meet with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney — a meeting allegedly attended by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Once again however that such a statement, if made, would not be materially different from what was argued. The White House released the transcript showing that Trump wanted to arrange a meeting with Giuliani. What Trump has recently denied is that he ever told Bolton that the Ukrainian aid was linked to the investigations.
Moreover, the White House team landed some haymakers themselves in showing that the House Managers misrepresented aspects in the record. House manager Adam Schiff was previously given four Pinnochios by the Washington Post for his denial of any contacts between his staff and the whistleblower. Should he join this line of counsel to be frog-marched to the bar? Such disagreements tend to be the grist of the litigation mill. Lawyers often present one-sided views of the record that the other side views as unfair or unsupported. We do not declare on national television that the entire opposing legal team “will” (not even “may be”) called before the bar.
The defense took the record of the House and did what good lawyers do: they argued the best case within that record. We cannot allow the age of rage to adopt William Shakespeare’s line from Henry VI: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is even worse when it is lawyers seeking to shoot lawyers.
Note how ‘collegiality’ prevents Prof. Turley from calling a spade a spade in this case.
Note, this fellow and the three clowns the Democrats recruited to testify at Adam Schiff’s hearings are all honored members of the law professoriate. Which tells you something about standards of integrity in that subculture. Banish them.
isi it a crime to falsely accuse someone of being a traitor? there are other, similarly serious charges/innuendoes of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that, if trump is acquitted, are odious, obnoious and seditious. why aren’t the house managers accused of these, soon to be proven baseless accusations.
NB, the professor’s standing in society at large is contingent on the social fiction that law faculties are disinterested sources of professional training. To some extent they may be – when the subject is tax law or commercial law. What we’re seeing is what Robert Bork alluded to 20 years ago when he said that constitutional law had been destroyed as an authentic intellectual subdiscipline. (See Wm. Dyer, who completed law school in 1977, on instruction in constitutional law: it can be done well, but among the subdisciplines of law, it’s the one it is easiest for a professor to fake proficiency).
Here’s a suggestion for the serious state legislature. Set up a new set of law faculties which would have 4-5 sets of degree and certificate programs:
1. The working lawyer’s degree: 48 credits, preparation LSAT + an arts-and-sciences certificate of 48 credits (philosophy, Anglo-American history with an emphasis on legal and formal institutions, and sundries like rhetoric, social psychology, criminology, and political theory) and a business certificate of 24 credits (courses in accounting, finance, insurance, and real-estate).
2. Certificates in specialized segments of the law: preparation, working lawyer’s degree. Maximum duration: 48 credits for tax law.
3. Junior certificates in specialized segments of the law: preparation, satisfactory college boards, employer application. Training for lay employees of law firms.
4. Judge’s degree: 36 credits. Preparation: working lawyer’s degree.
5. Legal scholar’s degree: course work as needed dissertation. Preparation: judge’s degree.
Establish hiring committees composed of the leading practitioners in the state, with some judges included. Then close the existing law schools, fire their faculty, and banish them from the state.
there are valid and creative ideas , but, you’re fighting centuries of tradition to slice and dice it up that way. and the usual entrenched interests
there is a move on to loosen up the rules and laws against the unauthorized practice of law, underway in professional licensing circles. mostly because how people shop for legal services has changed. basically everybody with money goes to big law firms, who have massive legal budgets, and the rest of us, mostly people just look online. but the online marketplace is severely hampered by certain archaic rules.
The lead in says ‘will be brought up on bar charges.’ The beginning indicatesd could be brought up both referring to the Presidents Defense Team.
The body and substance indicates the opposite and manages to suggest Peloso can be indicted.
I’m going back to the other lead of the day indicating Soros is . gunning for Trump supporters but indicates he’s at odds with Clinton.
No problem. The left is self immolating annd our targeting of Soros is hitting X ring .
Gerhardt is the legal profession’s version of the Soup Nazi. “No due process for you!”
😂😂
Michael Gerhardt is a partisan Democrat with a long history of involvement in Democratic schemes. OF COURSE, he thinks the White House team are liars because he’s a liar himself, and he knows it.
The President’s defense team did an excellent job. My one MAJOR criticism is that they never brought up the Treaty With Ukraine On Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal Matters. The Treaty was signed by President Bill Clinton and ratified by the Senate in 1999. To my knowledge it is still in effect. In his letter to the Senate, Clinton wrote, “The Treaty provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons…executing requests for searches and seizures…” As President Trump asked President Zelensky “to look into” the business dealings with Ukraine of two Americans, he was 1) aware his call was monitored; 2) aware of the existing Treaty; and 3) not focused on Joe Biden’s candidacy (which does not confer immunity on him).
The issue of “quid pro quo” is irrelevant, although the media are rabidly focused on that issue. Professor Turley, WHY didn’t the defense team cite the Treaty? IMHO, it exonerates Trump completely.
Maybe Gerhardt feels the same way about the house managers? They did a good bit of demonstrable lying.
Ok Gerhardt: 1. State each false statement and how each was false. 2. Do so within 24 hours. 3. Or I will file a request to disbar you in NC and ask you students to not sign up for any of your classes.
The Entire Democrat Party should face the Death Penalty for Treason.
njlamer, that actually might happen this coming November! 🙂
At least the Nazis were brazen in stating why a group of people should be killed
Democrats just wing it
For the life of me I can’t really understand how Prof. Turley can have any respect whatsoever for some of his professional friends.
Those that exhibit severe brain malfunction top the list.
It’s that kind of disease where this teachers forgot what they once (likely) learned but became so radical in their thinking they would, in all likelihood reopen internment camps – yup, those that the USSC ruled were illegal.
I used to think that at my age I had seen it all. Well sorta. But then here comes a statement from a supposed learned person that actually floors me. This buffoon of a baboon can ignore A. shiff lies that if he were not an elected official, would likely face disbarment while calling the President’s defense attorneys to be disbarred. I would sure hate to have a law class from him. It is that wrong thinking guidance that actually proves my point which is that the Teachers of this country have changed this country from a Republic/democracy to country with Socialist leanings by teaching ignorance! What a dumbassed baboon. And baffoon.
How is it that four Senators running for President get to vote on impeaching their opponent?
Only one Republican objected, calling for their recusal. Unbelievable.
because no senator was “unbiased”……. this is not a jury pool where you can select 12 jurors from a greater pool of hundreds for the sake of this case……. essentially, due to the rules of impeachment and conviction, you’re stuck with the jury you got, no matter its make up…….. I think largely the reason in this case is its because those 4 wont make a difference in the outcome as the threshold for conviction is 67 votes……. not a battle worth fighting essentially.
the more pertinent questions are, how did the democrats even go forward with impeachment in the first place, knowing full well ahead of time they would have to flip 20 senators? once they went forward with impeachment, how could they not go by the book using only the judiciary committee and have the inquiries be in full view of the public so as to garner as much public support (and therefore pressure on senators to flip to vote for conviction)? and then why rush the process and not let the subpoenas for testimony, the presidential objections and the judicial settlements pan out? (in terms of doing damage to trump long term this would have been the better play in letting the media do more damage daily) .
Personally I’m glad this whole mess is coming to an abrupt end, but from the democrat voter perspective, those voters need to take a long, hard look at the incompetence on parade throughout their elected officials. If I were a leftist, I would be wild about the incompetence coming from my party leadership.
Matt Frlhart – I think Rhenquist referred to the Senators more as judges rather than a jury.
@Matt- The Fabulist Four have an intractable conflict of interest. The choices are obvious- they should either withdraw as Presidential candidates or recuse themselves from voting in the impeachment. If they cared one whit about the integrity of the impeachment proceeding they would choose one or the other.
You know if they were Republicans they would not have been allowed to be a juror.
I expect charges to be filed with the Bar, however, it will not be successful.
Many Professors of Law do not practice law, and for good reason. They would not be successful as lawyers and have probably already tried and failed. Nancy Pelosi is no very bright, and has no clue about how the legal system works, or what the meaning of meaning of the Constitutional provisions are. I can forgive her uncalled for remark due to her ignorance.
However, when someone like Mr. Gerhardt, who should know something about the Constitution and about the role of attorneys under our Constitution and legal system, I cannot forgive him. His repeating of what an ignorant person says, is something that his University should look into nd consider getting a replacement for him.
Pelosi knows plenty. and this guy does too.
this is all an ongoing program of intimidation of lawyers that has been proceeding for decades now
it’s proceeding quickly with persecutions against lawyers for “poltiically incorrect” language such as the heinous offense of calling a client’s adversary an “illegal immigrant” which even though it may be truthful, and relevant, is somehow VERBOTEN now. preposterous !
I have been warning about this online and in professional circles for decades now but people just look at me like I’m radioactive when i bring it up. once i hinted at it to a state supreme court justice and the guy looked like he wanted to punch me. seriously. (no names mentioned here folks sorry) the rest of the people who should understand, dont; and those who DO understand are in the pay of the masters and so they look at me like a thought-criminal in action.
the reality is the state bar of every state is 100% run like a plantation and the state supreme justices are the masters. and we lawyers are slaves. not even the first amendment gets its due. state bar regulation mostly not a federal issue due to 11th amendment which is a bar on 18 usc 1983 claims against the state supremes for censoring lawyer speech.
They should be disbarred and sent to the gulags.
You are a fool and know nothing. Don’t forget to vote for Bernie.
Like. Assuming that was sarcasm.
🙂
What Trump’s lawyers did is the personification of why people hate lawyers! Should they be put up for disbarment? We should look at each individual instance.
What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start! Just kidding.
Holmes, do not ever find your self in need of legal defense. You don’t seem to believe in due process.
exactly wrong. they hate lawyers because lawyers are the bete noire of people who hate law and order.
those people are in every social circle and every political stripe. the jails are full of them and boardrooms too
and Congress I might add, however many of a majority probably are lawyers in the first place. .
today we have the irony that some top lawyers obviously hate law and order themselves.
I am being honest in stating that I would like Dr T’s perspective on if Schiff and Nadler should face charges. AND I’m being serous. In Dems presentation to the “jury”, they altered the words of documentary evidence. They changed the definition of the charging document and argued entirely different crimes. They didn’t turn over ALL of the transcripts of their secret clandestine proceedings. In their secret clandestine proceedings, they had no right to call witnesses or present evidence or have counsel.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of American Juris Prudence conflicts with much of what I saw from the Democrats.
SBG, I know ur being serious about getting Gerhardt’s opinion about shiff and nabler’s lying, but do you really think he would ever honestly think they did anything wrong?
That’s like Gerhardt rounding up all those who don’t agree with him and sending them to a government agency in charge of the forced-labor camp system aka Gulag’s.
And no, I firmly believe that if they had their way, this is exactly what they would do!!!
bob guess what there universities function like re-education facilities now already. they reeducate young people to be slavish sycophants of permanent bureaucracies and all their petty lying fashions
They should go to prison for a long time.