Kari Lake's lawyers hit with bar complaints

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

A legal group plans to file bar complaints Thursday against four lawyers representing Kari Lake in voter fraud litigation, NBC News has learned. Lake, a Donald Trump acolyte who has refused to accept that she lost the governor’s race in Arizona last year, campaigned on the voter fraud claims first popularized by the former president.

She filed lawsuits before and after the election advancing the claims, despite having no clear evidence of election fraud. A federal judge has already sanctioned her lawyers for their efforts, but they could face suspensions or even disbarment.

The 65 Project, a group targeting attorneys who advance spurious election fraud claims in court, said they are filing bar complaints in Minnesota and Maryland against attorneys Jesse Kibort, Joseph Pull and Andrew Parker, who are licensed to practice law in Minnesota, and Kurt Olsen, who is licensed in Maryland. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The four lawyers represented Lake and Mark Finchem, then a Republican candidate for secretary of state in Arizona, in a lawsuit first filed in April challenging the use of electronic voting machines. Lake and Finchem claimed the devices could not be trusted.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/kari-lakes-lawyers-hit-bar-complaints-rcna70646

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. These idiots need to be disbarred

[oldsoftie]

2. On what basis? Every idiot has the right to hire a lawyer to pursue a stupid claim.

Remember the suit against Subway about their foot long only being 11.5"?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. Okay, but if the sub really is only 11.5" at least there's physical evidence (nt)

[cstanleytech]

4. Lawyers are required to conduct themselves in an ethical manner or

risk having their license to practice law suspended or revoked so if these lawyers did not behave in an ethical manner they might be in trouble.

[Torchlight]

5. My guess would be presenting invalid evidence, the same thing they were sanctioned for

by the judge.

In the larger effort to illustrate they were part of the pre-planned, orchestrated effort to disrupt Arizona’s election even before it began, I think this is a good tack to take advantage of.

[PSPS]

8. No they don't. Lawyers are (supposed to be) officers of the court.

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2023, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

These clowns were making claims they knew (or should have known) were spurious. And their re-filing cases with the same spurious claims makes them vexatious to boot.

[oldsoftie]

9. If thats the case, then they should be in big trouble.

Presenting evidence you KNOW to be false is frowned upon

[riversedge]

6. now the lawyers need lawyers. And Kari??

[Kali]

7. to quote one of the commentators of videos posted here frequently:

MAGA - Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

[republianmushroom]

10. like it

[Martin68]

11. Lawyers who are defending clients from criminal charges are just doing their jobs. This is a

completely different scenario because Lake is bringing the charges, and they are both frivolous and unsubstantiated. No lawyer is required to defend such a client and the charges she is bringing against the state. In fact, it is against their oath to do so.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. 'Very real threat': Kari Lake's lawyers could lose law licenses over bogus election fraud crusade

Attorneys who take these cases need to be disbarred

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/kari-lake-lawyers-2659433824/

Attorneys representing failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake are at serious risk of losing their law licenses by moving forward with frivolous litigation trying to overturn elections, said legal analyst Danny Cevallos on MSNBC Friday.....

"There are two questions there really," said Cevallos. "First, can every politician go and challenge their loss in court? In theory, yes. And we should encourage that because the courts are certainly a better place to do it than say, storming a Capitol building. So using legal recourse is the best outcome."

"But when does a case go from 'I think I should have won' to frivolous?" Cevallos continued. "Well, there is a standard for that in federal court. It's called Rule 11. But the bottom line is, what did they know when they filed? Did they know that this was hopeless or more? Did they know that it was not grounded in any way in either existing law or an argument for the creation of new law? If that's the case, then that's the frivolous standard. So I think in the future, we continue to encourage politicians to take their claims to court not to the streets, but warn them don't do so if you know you're wrong."

"But if it's frivolous, what's the penalty?" asked Jansing.

"The penalty can be sanctions," said Cevallos. "With the court, there are so many different sanctions that a court can impose. They can get very creative when it comes to sanctions. And by the way, as we've seen, the lawyers who are involved do so at their own risk as well. They could lose their license or be suspended or be sanctioned. And there's nothing that strikes fear into the heart of lawyers, I can tell you, more than the idea that someone might pull our ticket. So that is a very real threat for the lawyers who would go and help politicians if their claims are frivolous."