Michigan District Court judge
Linda Parker has ruled that the lawyers who filed the election fraud case in
Michigan should be sanctioned. Her 110-page ruling is extraordinary in its
detail and legal reasoning.
The net result for Sidney
Powell, Lin Wood and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys is that they must pay the
other side’s attorneys fees, take continuing legal education classes, and face
possible disciplinary actions, including possible disbarment, in their home
states.
I can’t do justice to the
intricacies of Judge Parker’s analysis in a brief note, but the ruling boils
down to this: attorneys are responsible for what they file in court, they are
presumed to know both the court rules and the laws that they are
challenging and, most importantly, you never lie to the court.
The Michigan lawsuit, which contained
large elements that were cut-and-pasted from other state lawsuits, had dramatic
shortcomings. The most notable was the complete failure of plaintiffs’ lawyers
to perform even the most basic “due diligence.” In other words, these lawyers
made little or no attempt to determine whether the claims could even arguably
be supported. Furthermore, even when what they were asking for in the complaint
was no longer feasible, they kept the case going.
The actions of these lawyers
were simply unconscionable. It is one thing to be merely incompetent. It is
another entirely to purposely use the courts to promote their personal ends.
The response by some of these
sanctioned lawyers and members of the right-wing media has been boring in its
predictability. The brilliance of Judge Parker’s ruling is that she anticipated—and
answered—the hand-wringing responses that are being spouted. From the opinion:
“Journalists”—like
attorneys, Powell argued—“must be free to rely on sources they deem to be
credible, without being second-guessed by irate public figures who believe that
the journalists should have been more skeptical.”
Of course, Powell missed the
most essential point.
Attorneys
are not journalists. It therefore comes as no surprise that Plaintiffs’
attorneys fail to cite a single case suggesting that the two professions share
comparable duties and responsibilities.
The Court also addressed the
argument that the lawyers have First Amendment (free speech) rights that would
be seriously undermined by the issuance of sanctions.
Plaintiffs’
counsel’s
politically motivated accusations, allegations, and gamesmanship may be
protected by the First Amendment when posted on Twitter, shared on
Telegram, or repeated on television. The nation’s courts, however, are
reserved for hearing legitimate causes of action.
What Judge Parker’s decision
demonstrated (in painstaking detail) is that there are plenty of public forums
to peddle your conspiracy theories where they can be eagerly lapped up by people
devoid of analytical capacity. However, when you come to court, you must follow
the exacting rules to establish the truth.
Trump’s lawyers failed to
uphold even the minimal professional standards expected of attorneys. And they
will now pay for their chicanery.
Addendum. Judge Parker was
appointed by a Democratic president. According to some, that means that her
decision is politically motivated. That is an interesting but deluded argument,
especially if you read the opinion. Had her intention been partisan, she would
have taken a vindictive stance. She did not. In
fact, one lawyer who asked for attorneys’ fees was denied them. The reason?
Judge Parker noted that his participation did not add anything meaningful to
the lawsuit. Had the judge been a political hack, she would not have been so
careful in meting out the penalties.
