The court document ordered that effective immediately, “respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani, admitted as Rudolph William Giuliani, is disbarred from the practice of law.”
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been disbarred by the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division over statements regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. The ruling stated that "The disciplinary charges stem from the allegations that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client."
The court document ordered that effective immediately, "respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani, admitted as Rudolph William Giuliani, is disbarred from the practice of law" and "his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York." Giuliani’s license was suspended in June 2021 by the court, "based on uncontroverted evidence that he communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large, which conduct immediately threatened the public interest."
The Court had appointed a Referee "to conduct a hearing on the charges and to file a report making findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommending such discipline, if any, as may be appropriate" in August 2023, after the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) served Giuliani with "a petition of 20 charges based on the misconduct underlying his interim suspension." The Referee convened a six-day liability hearing in October 2023, and at the end of the hearing, the Referee "found that the AGC had proven 16 charges."
"Regarding the proven charges, respondent essentially conceded most of the factual predicates supporting the alleged acts of misconduct as gathered from the stipulated facts, the documentary evidence and the testimony presented. Instead, respondent fundamentally presented the defense that he lacked knowledge that statements he had made were false and that he had a good faith basis to believe the allegations he made to support his claim that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from his client."
"The Referee rejected the lack of knowledge-good faith defense, explicitly finding that, regarding the proven charges, he had made 'knowing falsehoods' and that each falsehood was made 'with the intent to deceive.'"
The court document cited statements from Giuliani, including claims that people were being brought from New Jersey to vote illegally in Philadelphia, that thousands of ballots were cast in the names of dead people in Philadelphia, That one vote was cast in the name of deceased boxing champion Joe Frazier in Philadelphia, and that there were "an extraordinary number of voter fraud convictions that stood as evidence of endemic election fraud in" Philadelphia.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
