The court said an interim suspension, like the one it imposed on Giuliani, is an unusual remedy reserved only for the most serious cases of suspected misconduct.
The suspension from the bar is astonishing for a lawyer who has already reached the heights of the profession, occupying the No.3 civil servant position in the Department of Justice and becoming one of the most prominent prosecutors in the country as the United States Attorney at Law. Manhattan in the 1980s.
Giuliani did not respond to messages seeking comment on the court action, but tweeted: âAre we living in Communist China? …
Will the New York Bar Association panel be held responsible for abuse of power? ”
An attorney for Giuliani in an ongoing federal investigation into his Ukraine-related work, Robert Costello, expressed his “surprise and disappointment” at the decision, but said he had not dealt with it. ‘case and was unaware of the details.
Former President Donald Trump called Giuliani a “great American patriot,” in a statement, adding: “All of New York is out of control, crime is at an all time high – it’s nothing but a witch hunt, and they should be ashamed of themselves. “
The court order says Giuliani argued that taking action against him for his public plea would violate his First Amendment free speech rights. The court disagreed.
“We reject the Respondent’s argument. This disciplinary proceeding concerns the professional restrictions imposed on the Respondent as a lawyer so as not to knowingly distort the facts and make false statements in connection with his representation of a client. It has long been recognized that ‘the speech of one lawyer is subject to greater regulation than the speech of others,’ the court said.
Giuliani will have the right to challenge the charges in a formal hearing, but the court made it clear that he was not impressed by his initial observations, calling some of his claims “just plain bogus.”
According to the court ruling, Giuliani admitted that some of his claims were not correct, but said he relied on information provided to him by others. Judges said Giuliani insisted many of his claims about dead voters and undocumented voting were based on information he had received from other people, but he did not provide original information in court and, in some cases, declined to say who provided it.
“We do not understand, and the Respondent does not explain why, as a private lawyer apparently unrelated to law enforcement, he would have access to a” confidential informant “to which we also cannot have access. “, wrote the court. âAt another point, the Respondent claims he is relying on a Trump lawyer who chooses not to be identifiedâ¦ The Respondent also refers to hundreds of witnesses, experts and investigative reports , none of which was provided or identified. “
Much of the court’s decision rests on Giuliani’s conduct at a November 17, 2020 hearing in Williamsport, Pa., In a lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign challenging the presidential election result in this state. Judges said Giuliani repeatedly told the court that the campaign was making allegations of fraud in the case, when that request was withdrawn.
“The respondent’s misdescription of the case was not simply a passing error or an inadvertent reference. The fraud was the crowning achievement of his personal argument in court that day,” the court wrote. “There is no question that the Respondent must have known that there was no fraud claim in the matter. Much time and effort was spent on the Respondent’s false statements in court regarding the nature of the fraud. procedure.”