Giuliani Interim Suspension
I did not rush out of the gate to discuss the extremely well publicized (See, for example, NPR, CNN, NYT, and Forbes) interim suspension of Rudy Giuliani’s New York law license or the reciprocal interim suspension imposed the District of Columbia. There has been so much coverage that I found it interesting to watch the conversation unfold.
In fact, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department interim suspension of Rudy Giuliani’s law license has the legal profession buzzing with observations about the unusual nature of the suspension and repercussions for the disciplinary world, and the legal ethics rules in connection with the First Amendment.
Interim suspensions are extraordinary and are more common when there is a pending issue of financial misconduct or criminal conduct. Here, the Court’s opinion indicated that the suspension, based on Giuliani’s false statements on behalf of his client, is warranted because:
“The seriousness of respondent’s uncontroverted misconduct cannot be overstated… False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society. When those false statements are made by an attorney, it also erodes the public’s confidence in the integrity of attorneys admitted to our bar and damages the profession’s role as a crucial source of reliable information (citations omitted). It tarnishes the reputation of the entire legal profession and its mandate to act as a trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice (citation omitted).
Some have criticized the Court for not ascribing more importance to the First Amendment issues that play a role when lawyers speak to the media as citizens rather than on behalf of a client. See Bruce Greene and Rebecca Roiphe’s “Opinion: As the Giuliani case goes forward, courts should think deeply about the First Amendment” in which they implore the court not to give short shrift to a lawyer’s First Amendment rights to political speech. The piece does concede that lawyers should be brought to task for lying to the court, but questions whether that is entirely at play here.
On the other hand, Ronald Minkoff who filed the disciplinary complaint with the New York Attorney Grievance Committee on behalf of the New York State Bar Association Past-President Michael Miller, the New York County Lawyers Association, and approximately 60 New York bar leaders and academics, told Bloomberg Law, “This is a once-in-a-generation decision, [that is] hugely important for the profession because it says that lawyers have to act honestly at all times, perhaps especially in matters of great political import.”
A few days later, Minkoff reflected on what some of the commentators may have missed. He wrote, “Caught up with Mr. Giuliani’s perceived lying about the election, most commentators missed that the Court was reacting not just to the Mr. Giuliani’s misconduct while representing his clients, but also to his cavalier attitude toward the disciplinary process itself. The Court made no secret that this influenced its decision.”
Minkoff concludes with a takeaway that is good advice for any attorney dealing with a disciplinary body: “The practical lessons are simple. Treat the disciplinary authorities with respect. Be as transparent as you can be. Act with remorse, not defiance. If you play with fire, you’re going to get burned – just as Mr. Giuliani did.”
No doubt the conversation will be ongoing as the New York case moves from an interim posture to a full hearing and final decision.
