A chilling precedent was set this week when the California Supreme Court disbarred John Eastman, a highly respected constitutional scholar. His transgression? Providing zealous legal counsel to President Donald Trump during the contested 2020 election. This wasn’t a matter of criminal wrongdoing – Eastman faced, and ultimately defeated, a politically charged indictment – but a stunning act of professional punishment.
The 2020 election was decided by the slimmest of margins. A shift of roughly 20,000 votes across just three states – Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – would have altered the outcome, according to official counts. However, the election unfolded under extraordinary circumstances, with unprecedented changes to voting procedures implemented in response to the pandemic.
Courts across the nation fundamentally rewrote election laws. Unsolicited ballots flooded mailboxes, often sent to addresses of people who no longer resided there. Traditional safeguards like signature verification were abandoned, ostensibly due to the pandemic. The widespread use of unsecured ballot drop boxes further complicated the process, creating an environment ripe for questions and concerns.
President Trump, acting on these legitimate concerns, requested audits and initiated legal challenges to the results. He assembled a team of attorneys, including John Eastman, a distinguished law professor who once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Eastman devised a strategy rooted in existing law, specifically the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
This Act, designed to govern the certification of electoral votes, outlined a process for Congress to address disputes. Eastman’s plan involved challenging the certification in contested states, and crucially, preparing alternative slates of electors. These weren’t attempts to create “fake electors,” as critics claim, but a historical practice dating back to the 1876 and 1960 presidential elections.
The intention was to have these electors ready to vote for President Trump should Congress fail to certify the results and return the matter to the states for review. Eastman advised Vice President Mike Pence to utilize this mechanism, urging him to allow disputed states to re-examine their certifications in light of the documented irregularities.
Eastman publicly and unequivocally stated that his and the President’s actions were lawful. He sought to navigate a complex and archaic law, a law that Congress itself later acknowledged needed clarification – leading to the passage of the Electoral Count Reform Act during the subsequent administration. He never advocated for illegal activity, violence, or the rejection of legitimate votes.
Despite this, and the absence of any criminal conviction, Eastman has been disbarred. The initial legal attacks, spearheaded by a discredited prosecutor, failed. Yet, this decision represents a dangerous overreach, a chilling effect on the legal profession, and a stark departure from the principles of due process.
The fate of another attorney, Jeff Clark, now hangs in the balance. Accused of “attempted dishonesty” by the District of Columbia Bar, his case awaits a decision. Like Eastman, Clark is being targeted for providing legal counsel during a politically sensitive time. His defense rests on the simple fact that he acted lawfully and ethically.
The disbarment of John Eastman is a grave warning. It signals a willingness to punish lawyers for vigorously defending their clients, even when acting within the bounds of the law. The legal community, and the nation, must hope that the D.C. Court of Appeals recognizes the dangerous precedent being set and exonerates Jeff Clark.
