WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a significant move for legal accountability, a California judge issued a recommendation on March 27 advocating for the disbarment of John Eastman, a former attorney for President Donald Trump. Eastman played a central role in the Trump campaign’s efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results and was identified as a key figure behind the events leading up to the January 6th Capitol riot. The State Bar of California subsequently updated Eastman’s status on April 2, marking him as “not eligible to practice law” in the state.
The extensive 128-page ruling from the State Bar Court of California details multiple charges against Eastman. These include accusations of “failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States,” two counts of “seeking to mislead a court,” six counts of “moral turpitude by making various misrepresentations,” and two additional counts of “moral turpitude.” These charges underscore the severity of the court’s findings regarding Eastman’s professional conduct.
The disbarment proceedings against Eastman originated from 11 charges brought by the California State Bar. These charges are directly linked to his legal strategies aimed at overturning the 2020 election outcome. Central to the case were two memos authored by Eastman, dated December 23, 2020, and January 4, 2021. These documents outlined controversial pathways for Trump to remain in office despite losing the election. The latter memo, a widely discussed six-page document, proposed a strategy where Vice President Mike Pence would reject electoral votes for Joe Biden from seven key states, effectively awarding them to Trump.
Eastman’s legal arguments heavily relied on the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a fringe legal concept. This theory posits that the term “legislature” in the U.S. Constitution exclusively refers to state legislatures, granting them sole authority to regulate federal elections, including the selection of presidential electors, without checks from state courts or governors.
The January 4th memo was disseminated just two days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Prior to the attack, at a rally near the White House on January 6th, Eastman publicly asserted claims of voter fraud that favored Biden, allegations for which no credible evidence has ever been presented.
“They were unloading the ballots from that secret folder, matching them, matching them to the unvoted voter, and voilà, we have enough votes to barely get over the finish line,” Eastman controversially stated at the rally. “We saw it happen in real time last night and it happened on Nov. 3rd as well.” These statements, made to a highly charged crowd, amplified tensions and contributed to the volatile atmosphere that preceded the Capitol breach.
During the unfolding events at the Capitol, Greg Jacob, Vice President Pence’s chief counsel, directly confronted Eastman via email, stating, “[Thanks] to your bullshit, we are now under siege,” as reported. In subsequent congressional investigations into January 6th, Jacob testified that he had informed Trump that Eastman’s plan was in direct violation of the Electoral Count Act. Furthermore, emails revealed Jacob telling fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that Eastman should be considered for a “pardon list,” indicating the perceived legal jeopardy of Eastman’s actions.
The earlier two-page memo from December 23rd already laid out a strategy to maintain Trump’s presidency based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud. Crucially, Eastman reportedly formulated this plan despite numerous lawsuits across multiple states failing to produce any credible evidence of fraud that could have altered the election outcome. The California State Bar’s disbarment recommendation is fundamentally rooted in the scheme outlined in this December 23rd memo.
Even amidst the California State Bar proceedings, Eastman remained active in legal circles. In August 2023, he represented the Colorado Republican Party in a lawsuit aimed at preventing unaffiliated voters from participating in the 2024 Republican primary in that state. This lawsuit had the potential to disenfranchise nearly two million voters.
The California court’s recommendation goes beyond disbarment, suggesting that Eastman should also face “monetary sanctions” for his conduct. The judge stipulated a $10,000 penalty for “making numerous false and misleading statements regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election and Vice President Pence’s authority to refuse to count or delay counting properly certified slates of electoral votes and for his collaborative efforts with President Trump to impede the counting of electoral votes.”
According to the ruling, Eastman’s disbarment is set to take effect three days following the order’s issuance. This recommendation marks a critical juncture in the legal repercussions for those involved in the attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
Read the California Bar’s 11 charges against Eastman here.
Learn more about Eastman’s role in Trump’s election subversion here.
This post was updated on Tuesday, April 2 at 1:30 p.m. EDT to reflect that Eastman is no longer eligible to practice law in California.
