The California Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the disbarment of John Eastman, a former attorney for President Donald Trump and former dean of Chapman University Fowler School of Law, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Joe Biden.
Eastman was the Trump attorney who wrote out a Jan. 6, 2021, plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to wrongly reject some of the electoral votes Biden won to keep Trump in the White House.
Contrary to what his supporters have said, Eastman wasn’t disbarred for protected political speech but for sanctionable professional misconduct.
Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, said the decision “raises pivotal constitutional concerns.” But his argument is unpersuasive.
He’s not being prohibited from practicing law because of the client he represented, for unpopular political advocacy, aggressive lawyering or espousing a particular ideology or legal view. He was tossed for what California’s State Bar Court Hearing Department deemed “egregious and deceitful conduct.” When Eastman tried to overturn valid election results, he engaged in the type of conduct that threatens not only the integrity of the legal profession, but also the rule of law itself. Indeed, the State Bar of California found that Eastman’s false claims about the presidential election misled the “courts, public officials, and the American public.”
Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, said the decision “raises pivotal constitutional concerns” and that Eastman plans to seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s help. But his predictable argument that Eastman’s disbarment raises serious First Amendment concerns is unpersuasive. The First Amendment is not absolute. It does not give lawyers a license to violate professional obligations.
Here’s how Eastman landed on the receiving end of the legal profession’s most serious sanction. After extensive proceedings, the State Bar Court Hearing Department found Eastman liable for 10 of the 11 charges against him. Eastman was found culpable for promoting claims of election fraud that he failed to adequately investigate (perhaps because they were almost certainly baseless). He was similarly found culpable of misleading courts and public officials, attempting to create “alternative slates of electors to those that certified the 2020 presidential election” (meaning he advocated the use of “fake” electors) and pushing an unconstitutional legal strategy: namely the vice president unilaterally rejecting some states’ slate of electors.
Eastman, like all other lawyers, was an officer of the court. That role carries obligations that go beyond advocacy, including duties of candor, honesty and respect for the rule of law. Eastman didn’t just cross those lines — he leaped over them. The State Bar’s conclusion was blunt: His actions constituted “egregious and deceitful conduct” incompatible with the obligations of an attorney.
States can regulate the licensing of certain professionals, including lawyers, to protect the public. Love us, or hate us, lawyers are important in our society. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great, since lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been ‘officers of the courts.’” Simply put, lawyers have power in our society to protect clients’ interest, shape policy arguments, influence courts and, even in some cases, national events.
As a result, when lawyers speak in our professional capacity, especially in written and verbal statements in court, our speech can be regulated in ways that other people’s speech cannot. We can be disciplined for false or misleading statements, even when those statements address matters of public concern. Many of Eastman’s statements show exactly why and how these punishments exist. Eastman crossed the line from advocacy to deception. As a judge of the State Bar Court found, Eastman made “multiple false and misleading statements in his professional capacity as attorney for President Trump in court filings and other written statements, as well as in conversations with others and in public remarks.” Any attorneys who engage in similar behavior should also expect to be voted off the island.
As we approach the 2026 midterm elections, Eastman’s disbarment should serve as a deterrent.
As we approach the 2026 midterm elections, Eastman’s disbarment should serve as a deterrent to any lawyers who contemplate knowingly making false statements or misleading judges, government officials, voters and the public. Lawyers will almost certainly play a central role in pre- and post-election disputes. We can and should zealously advocate for our clients. But we should not advance baseless claims with no factual or legal support. Eastman’s disbarment sends a clear message to lawyers: Don’t abandon your legal and ethical obligations.
Eastman’s disbarment is a successful example of lawyers policing lawyers to protect not just the legal profession, but also the public at large. This episode should not serve to chill zealous or creative legal advocacy. Neither should it make lawyers who want to engage in political advocacy pause and think before they speak. Eastman’s disbarment is not about politics or ideology. It is not about the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. It is about upholding the rule of law.
Jessica Levinson is a Loyola Law School professor and MS NOW columnist.