Lawyers are rarely kicked off cases. This pro-Trump one just was.

Original Article:

Source: Link

Michigan lawyer Stefanie Lambert was already facing multiple criminal charges in that state stemming from the 2020 presidential election. Now, she’s been disqualified from representing a client in a defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems in Washington, D.C., regarding allegedly false statements about the company’s role in that election. The company sued Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne for his baseless claims that Dominion ran the 2020 election, that its technology was developed by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and that it hired a truck to shred 3,000 pounds of ballots. Dominion said those statements were false and not only harmed the company’s reputation and business but also resulted in serious threats to its employees, their families, and election workers. It’s a high bar to disqualify a lawyer from representing a client. But Lambert cleared it for reasons explained by U.S. magistrate judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya. Indeed, the judge’s opinion Tuesday cited “at least five reasons that illustrate why Lambert’s conduct meets the high bar for disqualification”: 1) Lambert’s breach of the Protective Order was intentional, had significant consequences, and was without justification; 2) Lambert has since repeatedly violated court orders and made misrepresentations to the Court; 3) Lambert’s prior conduct and admonishment undermines her argument that she acted in good faith and reflects her disregard for the Court’s orders and rules; 4) Lambert has not refuted Dominion’s argument that if the Court should impose a sanction, disqualification is the most appropriate; and 5) Lambert’s conduct has already severely tainted this proceeding and will continue to do so if she remains counsel in this case. Upadhyaya noted that Lambert had disclosed confidential Dominion case material in one of her own criminal cases and that she shared documents with a sheriff (who had no role in this litigation) who also publicly spread the information. “This is not a case of an inadvertent breach or good faith disclosure,” the judge wrote, calling it “unfathomable for Lambert to believe she could do whatever she wanted with Dominion’s Litigation Documents.” The judge also said that Byrne himself violated the protective order and that Dominion might seek sanctions against him. But Byrne wasn’t the subject of this opinion. Lambert was, in the latest example of Donald Trump-aligned lawyers facing consequences for going off the rails in the face of Trump’s 2020 election loss — some of whom might not be lawyers anymore when all is said and done. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the top legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term kicks off in October.