(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Chesebro Disbarred in NY, Salacious Scuttlebutt from TX, and MORE on Bar Discipline... [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-06-27

Chesebro is Disbarred in NY

On May 27th, a five-judge panel of the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division entered an order disbarring Kenneth Chesebro for his part in the attempts to overturn the 2020 election, specifically as the “architect of the fake elector scheme.” Chesebro has bar licenses in multiple states: He was suspended from the practice of law in California, New Jersey, Florida and Massachusetts for various fixed terms based on his guilty plea in the Fulton County, GA case. The state of Texas has (perhaps not surprisingly) initiated no disciplinary action against Chesebro, so he still has an active law license there. According to Chesebro’s Texas Bar profile, he is currently living in the San Juan, Puerto Rico area.

The NY Referee recommended suspending a final disposition pending the outcome of criminal charges against Chesebro, Michael Roman and James Troupis in Wisconsin. However, the Justices found sufficient evidence in the record to warrant disbarment without the Wisconsin charges: (1) Chesebro’s high level of involvement and substantial legal experience; (2) conviction of a serious crime (Georgia) arising out of his participation in a plan to disrupt the lawful function of government and to overturn the results of a presidential election; (3) continued representation of the Trump campaign despite its failures to implement changes recommended by Chesebro in include language that the alternate slates of electors were “contingent” upon a favorable court ruling; and (4) lack of remorse and “cavalier attitude” to his reporting obligations to state disciplinary authorities.

Former TX AG Employees Sue Paxton’s First Assistant

In late May of this year, Former TX Solicitor Judd Stone and former Assistant AG Chris Hilton were sued by former AG employee Jordan Eskew for sexual harassment. As some may recall, Stone and Hilton took temporary leave from employment at the AGs office to assist in AG Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial in September 2023. Eskew also took a temporary leave of absence to join Stone and Hilton in defending Paxton. The original plan was that former employees would return to the AG’s office when Paxton was acquitted and resumed office, but Stone and Hilton formally resigned on October 17, 2023, giving no reason. The harassment allegedly occurred while the three employees were on leave from the AG’s office.

Stone and Hilton have denied the harassment allegations, and are now accusing Paxton’s First Assistant AG (who, along with Paxton, was deemed to be not subject to State bar discipline for their part in the Texas v Pennsylvania litigation due to lack of jurisdiction) of witness tampering during Paxton’s impeachment trial. There has apparently been bad blood between Webster and Stone/Judd for some time, so it is hard to know who is or is not telling the truth. However, news about malfeasance in connection with Paxton’s impeachment trial would not surprise me.

On June 25th, Stone Hilton filed a complaint against Webster and two others in the AGs office in their individual capacities. The suit, filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Texas (Austin Division), accuses Webster of “chilling” their First Amendment rights and causing damages that sound a lot like slander. The suit alleges that an associated State Bar complaint was filed as well. The complaint opens with “Brent Webster is a petty tyrant who uses the authority of his office to enrich himself and punish his enemies.” So much of this going around, must be contagious.

Stone and Hilton attached an email that was purportedly circulated in the AGs office by Webster about interviews with two female employees who approached him on October 13, 2023 (following return from temporary “impeachment defense” leave). The two women purportedly accused Judd (in the presence of Hilton) of sharing “violent sexual fantasies” about (wait, not the women) Webster, which the women nonetheless found offensive. According to Webster’s email, Paxton knew nothing about this until Webster told him. This is what purportedly prompted both Stone and Hilton to submit their resignations on October 19th. Webster concludes, “The rape fantasies, the bragging about past violence and current violent tendencies, and paranoia—these are all classic indications of a deeply unhinged obsessive human being who is one missed treatment or bad day away from murder.”

Kraken Bar Discipline Set for July 23rd

The parties are submitting their final briefings in the DC Bar disciplinary cases against the three Kraken attorneys (Julia Haller, Brandon Johnson and Lawerence Joseph)---after a record-setting 34-day hearing that spanned the last three months of 2024 and the first two months of 2025. A summary of their defenses:

They basically served as “worker bees” and had no authority to file pleadings, determine where pleadings should be filed, or who the plaintiffs should be. The lead attorneys in the Kraken cases were Sidney Powell (who was paying the bills and who has escaped bar discipline in Texas), and New York attorney Howard Kleinhendler (who served as the managing attorney and testified to this in the DC discipline hearing). There are sub-issues around the significance of being designated “of counsel” and (in some instances) their names were added to pleadings without their consent. This is perhaps their strongest defense. It does not mean that they will entirely escape discipline, but it could mean that (if discipline is imposed) it will be something less than disbarment.

The Kraken attorneys (which include Haller, Johnson, Sidney Powell, and Howard Kleinhendler) are still embroiled in bar disciplinary proceedings in Michigan. A related federal sanctions case has been up and down to the Six Circuit Court of Appeals, where sanctions against two of the attorneys (none of the ones here) were dismissed due to their minimal participation. So, this is also being used as a defense here.

A corollary to this line of defense is that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) is applying an overbroad interpretation and “radical expansion” of the disciplinary rules. The argument is that ODC has not definitely connected any of the work that the respondents actually did with the offending (i.e., false or frivolous) portions of the pleadings. This case—like most of the 2020 election cases—is unprecedented in its scope (multiple attorneys not connected to a firm spread across multiple jurisdictions and without a clearly identifiable “client”). Disciplinary cases are typically brought against individual attorneys and not a “collective.” (or, in other words, a conspiracy). There is also the argument that challenging election results should not be equated with “violating the foundations of democracy.” Which, in my opinion, completely misstates the case, but then, that is what these people do.

A second main argument (mainly promoted by Johnson and his attorney but also echoed by the other two to some extent) is that the proceedings are politically motivated/biased, which I don’t think will go anywhere (and may even backfire). Previous motions to dismiss based on selective prosecution were denied.

When these attorneys testified, they did not appear to be evasive (although sometimes their memories seemed to be conveniently selective), but rather they argued that they believed the cases they were propounding were adequately grounded in fact and in law at the time they were filed. That is, they appear to be converted zealots rather than outright liars. They point to law review articles addressing ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act (ECA). But this ignores the fact that if the ECA is “unconstitutional,” it has been so since 1887. So why NOW, in the middle of a contested election, does the issue have to be decided? Think that the whole timing thing is what gives away the bad faith.

Haller has worked as a Senior Legal Counsel at Stephen Miller’s America First Legal Foundation since April of 2023. Most of the hearing testimony was from the usual “election denier” community (some who were actively engaged in challenging electronic voting long before 2020) in an attempt to prove that they had adequate basis for their challenges. Although a lot of the “evidence” submitted came out after the Kraken cases had been dismissed.

While the hearing was going on, Byrne (Johnson’s attorney) at various times whined about the differential treatment of Hunter Biden. Disciplinary charges were brought against Biden on Jun 18, 2024, following his guilty plea on federal felony charges. Biden’s law license was suspended on June 25th (which is NOT the case with the Kraken attorneys—who continue to practice law). Biden could have just pled to the facts and asked for a hearing on mitigation (i.e., he paid all the back taxes owed and is “clean” from whatever drove him to commit the crime in the first place). On March 26, 2024, Biden had withdrawn a prior consent to disbarment, but at no time asked for the case to be dismissed, even after he was pardoned by his father (then-President Joe Biden) on December 1, 2024. Contrast this to Trumper attorneys who use every conceivable argument and delay tactic to avoid consequences. Biden was disbarred on May 1, 2025 (less than a year after the case was filed), but amazingly no crowing and bleating from the RWNJ propaganda machine about this.

The DC Bar has made all of the documents for “public interest” disciplinary cases available here. Anyone reviewing the volume of case documents can see how quick and easy the Biden case was resolved compared to the cases against Jeffrey Clark and the Kraken attorneys. The disciplinary case against Clark was filed on July 22, 2022, and is still waiting for a date to set oral argument. The ODC has submitted the recent decisions disbarring Chesebro (NY) and John Eastman (CA). Clark has submitted some “new evidence” purportedly “discovered” by FBI Director Kash Patel that “proves” China interfered in the 2020 election.

In the Kraken cases, oral argument has been set for Wednesday, July 23, beginning at 9:30 am (Eastern time). But I wouldn’t be surprised if the Krakens found some way to delay this. You can view the livestreamed hearings remotely by scrolling to the Hearing and Oral Argument Schedule (Lady Justice holding scales) and clicking the calendar link on the day of the hearing.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/27/2330517/-Chesebro-Disbarred-in-NY-Salacious-Scuttlebutt-from-TX-and-MORE-on-Bar-Discipline?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/