Where does a lawyer draw the line between zealous advocacy of a client’s cause and using his standing as a lawyer as a license to lie? A California State Bar judge ruled last week that former Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman crossed that line in his representation of Donald Trump’s efforts to invalidate the 2020 election.
“It is true that an attorney has a duty to engage in zealous advocacy on behalf of a client,” bar judge Yvette Roland wrote in a 128-page opinion. “However, Eastman’s inaccurate assertions were lies that cannot be justified as zealous advocacy.”
The case, she reasoned, “boils down to an analysis of whether or not Eastman … acted dishonestly.”
Anything that takes 128 pages to explain can’t really be that simple. Do lawyers act dishonestly in representing guilty defendants? Yes and no. Does every lawyer who agreed with Trump’s outrageous claims that the election was rigged, or advised him to contest it, deserve to be disbarred? Obviously not.