The
decision to suspend Giuliani’s law license:
jurisdictional
basis fabricated by the licensing court
Tatiana Neroni,
Juris Doctor
Initial
publication in Russian on Academia.edu – September 7, 2021 ©
In its decision to preliminarily suspend the law license
of Rudy Giuliani, lawyer to 45th US President Donald J. Trump, the
New York licensing court has reviewed and rejected Giuliani’s protest against
court’s regulation of his political speech in and out of court and suspended Giuliani’s
law license, before the formal charges were filed and without any hearing, because
of his political statements about results of presidential elections 2020 in 4
states:
1.
Arizona,
2.
Georgia
3.
Michigan
4.
Pennsylvania.
In asserting its right to regulate political speech of
attorneys in and out of court the New York licensing court relied upon two U.S.
Supreme Court cases:
1. Gentile
v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US 1030, 1051 (1991),
and
2. Ohralik
v Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447, 465 (1978).
The reality is that neither one of these precedents of
the U.S. Supreme Court contains permission to any governmental bodies, courts
included, to regulate political speech of lawyers – with very narrow exceptions
that did not apply in Giuliani’s case.
On the very opposite, in
the former of the two precedents cited by the New York licensing court in
Giuliani’s case, Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447, 465 (1978), the essence of the
case was about regulating of purely commercial speech of a lawyer – the so-called
“ambulance-chasing”, imposing of the lawyer’s paid business to patients of hospitals
without their consent.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme
Court has been very cautious not to regulate political speech of lawyers in Ohralik,
and not to even appear as if it is attempting to do that – it stated
specifically in Ohralik that the speech regulated in that case was not
political in character.
In the latter of the two precedents
cited by the New York licensing court in Giuliani’s case, Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US
1030, 1051 (1991),
the essence of the case was disciplinary punishment of a criminal defense attorney
who has won a jury trial for his client. The punishment was for the lawyer’s press-conference
before the formal charges were brought against his client, where the lawyer has
publicly accused the local police of criminal activities, fabrication of a
criminal case against his client and mishandling of the drugs seized by the
police elsewhere.
The U.S. Supreme Court has
actually vacated the attorney’s punishment, stating that
1. An
attorney may need to make out-of-court public statements on behalf of his client
in the course of a court case if the attorney decides that the client’s interests
so demand;
2. An attorney may publicly criticize the government
out-of-court despite a pending court case, which is political speech that the
government may not regulate, with two exceptions – if the attorney has used in
his/her political speech
1)
Information obtained through a mandatory court discovery process, and
2)
Information subject to a pre-trial court gag
order.
The court in Giuliani’s case never mentioned that Giuliani
used in his statements information falling into either of the above two exceptions,
therefore, the New York court had no authority to regulate Giuliani’s political
speech – in or out of court.
Therefore, Giuliani was correct in his protest that the
court lacked authority to regulate his political speech through a license regulating
procedure.
Moreover, the court in Giuliani’s case acknowledged
that at all times when making his statements Giualiani acted in a
representative capacity, as the voice of his client, 45th US
President Donald J. Trump.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated more than half a
century ago that the government may not do in an indirect way what it may not
do in a direct way.
Donald J. Trump is not an attorney licensed by the
State of New York to practice law, nor does he purport to practice law in the
state of New York, and thus is not subject to regulation by New York State
court regulating attorneys.
New York attorney licensing court had no authority to
regulate political speech of 45th US President Donald J. Trump – not
directly and not indirectly, through regulating his representative, lawyer
Giuliani.
Nor did the court have authority to regulate Giualini’s
speech had that speech been on Giuliani’s own behalf, in view of the true
holding and reasoning of the two US Supreme Court cases Giuliani’s court has (deliberately)
misquoted.
Therefore, the Giuliani court had no jurisdiction over
proceedings, its decisions are null and void and the continuing proceedings
must be barred as unconstitutional.