April 04, 2024 11:58 AM UTC

John Eastman: Don't Disbar Me So I Can Keep Losing In Colorado

• 3 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

In documents filed yesterday before the State Bar Court of California, former University of Colorado “conservative scholar” and central player in the scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election John Eastman is requesting a stay of the decision inactivating Eastman’s license to practice law, citing a number of cases around the country Eastman remains involved with:

If the Order placing Dr. Eastman on inactive enrollment is not stayed, not only would it be highly prejudicial to Dr. Eastman, it would also be highly prejudicial to his clients. Dr. Eastman is a lawyer who has dedicated his career to upholding constitutional principles – it has been his life’s work…

Right up until Eastman plotted the overturning of a presidential election, this might have been more true. But it’s not true anymore, and that’s why Eastman was recommended to be disbarred.

He has spent his entire career advocating for his clients, whether they be unknown individuals or public entities, in furtherance of one of the key tenets of the legal profession – that everyone deserves representation, especially in an adversarial system. Over the course of his career, Dr. Eastman has appeared in state and federal court, representing clients as litigants and amici curiae up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States. Dr. Eastman has built his professional reputation upon his representation of clients in constitutional law matters and many clients and counsel seek him out for his expertise in these matters. If the Order placing Dr. Eastman on inactive enrollment were not stayed, those clients would be harmed by depriving them of the breadth and depth of Dr. Eastman’s knowledge and prowess as a zealous advocate…

And who are the clients Eastman cites as needing the sagely constitutional advice that only he can provide, you ask?

Colorado Republican Party v. Griswold. This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado’s open primary law, which allows unaffiliated voters to vote in the primary elections in which major political parties in Colorado choose their nominees for the general election ballot for both federal and state elective offices. Dr. Eastman represents the Colorado Republican Party, which alleges that the law violates its Speech and Association rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as its right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied in February, but the case is currently in discovery…Plaintiff strongly wishes Dr. Eastman to continue with the representation, both because of his expertise and to avoid the additional costs that it would be incurred if someone else had to take over the role of lead attorney on the case.

In addition to representing congressional bottomfeeders Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene in a case over a rally of theirs that was canceled, Eastman is asking the California Bar Court to let him keep his law license in order to continue prosecuting the Colorado Republican Party’s losing bid to exclude unaffiliated voters from their primaries. Former Sen. Kevin Lundberg asserts in his declaration that “the various charges and allegations against Dr. Eastman were and are meritless and politically-motivated,” which isn’t likely to move the judge who just ruled the opposite way to sympathy. The Colorado GOP’s case doesn’t engender much more sympathy than Gaetz and MTG, and we don’t see why the court would stay Eastman’s disbarment in order to keep him working on it.

Likewise with another local case that we confess until this filing we didn’t realize Eastman was even involved with:

J.R. v. Harrison Sch. Dist. et al. Dr. Eastman was retained on a pro bono basis to represent a middle school student, J.R., who alleges that his constitutional rights to freedom of speech were violated when he was suspended for wearing a Gadsden Flag patch (among others) on his backpack to school. The numerous defendants have each filed motions to dismiss, either for failure to state a claim or on grounds of qualified immunity. Id. Briefing on those motions is currently underway, and although Dr. Eastman secured co-counsel to play a prominent role in the representation, he is still responsible as the primary author of the portions of the brief dealing with Defendants’ assertions of governmental immunity to Plaintiff’s First Amendment constitutional claims and may be called upon to present oral argument in the matter. The brief is due April 4. Discovery in the case is currently stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. As noted in the Declaration of J.R.’s mother and guardian Eden Hope Rodriguez, Dr. Eastman was retained because of his constitutional expertise, and Plaintiff desires that he continue with the representation…

This is a case that readers may recall last year of a student who was allegedly removed from class for wearing a Gadsden Flag patch–though it later emerged that the primary objection was to an AR-15 lapel pin worn by the student. Opinions may differ about this decision by school officials, but this is not what you’d call a pressing question that would in any way merit delaying Eastman’s disbarment.

Again, this is not a question of demand for Eastman’s legal services. Anybody who’s ever watched Better Call Saul knows unscrupulous lawyers do not lack for clients. The question is Eastman’s fitness to provide his demonstrably problematic legal advice–and if the conclusions reached in Eastman’s disbarment recommendation are correct, Eastman simply has no business practicing law for another day or another case.

In the end, what made Eastman “special” as a constitutional attorney–a willingness to suborn lawbreaking–led to his downfall.