Attorney in Election Lawsuit to Appeal Order Referring Him to Disciplinary Panel

March 3, 2021 Updated: March 3, 2021

An attorney that represented a group of voters that sought to block Congress from counting Electoral College votes has informed a judge that he intends to appeal a disciplinary ruling against him.

Lawyers representing Erick Kaardal told U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg that the attorney will appeal his ruling last month that referred him to the D.C. district court’s Committee on Grievances. The panel is responsible for investigating and considering allegations of misconduct against attorneys.

Boasberg’s disciplinary ruling (pdf) stems from a case where a group of voters alleged that a number of federal and state laws had unconstitutionally delegated the authority of state legislatures to certify these votes to state executive branches. It asked the court to invalidate and declare those laws unconstitutional and prevent then-Vice President Mike Pence, who would be counting the Electoral College votes, and Congress from counting votes from the contested states until their respective legislatures were able to meet to certify the votes.

Boasberg on Jan. 4 rejected the request to block the certification of electoral votes and rebuked the plaintiffs and their lawyer for what he believes was a “lack of good faith” in bringing the suit.

“In addition to being filed on behalf of Plaintiffs without standing and (at least as to the state Defendants) in the wrong court and with no effort to even serve their adversaries, the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution,” Boasberg wrote.

“It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States. The Court will deny the Motion.”

The judge also took issue over the plaintiffs’ lawyer failure to formally serve or notify any of the defendants.

“Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures,” he said.

He then asked Kaardal to defend why he should not be referred to the Committee on Grievances for potential discipline after the case has concluded.

In a filing to the court, Kaardal’s lawyers said they did not agree with Boasberg’s conclusions and that “extensive research and consideration went into planning and preparing Plaintiffs’ arguments for this case.” They also disputed the claim that Kaardal had failed to formally serve defendants on the documents, saying he had done so.

The lawyers urged Boasberg to not refer Kaardal to the panel, saying that it would have a “potential chilling effect” on future litigants “who assert good faith arguments for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”

Boasberg said he was not persuaded by their argument, saying that Kaardal “has not sufficiently allayed the Court’s concerns regarding potential bad faith.”

“When any counsel seeks to target processes at the heart of our democracy, the Committee may well conclude that they are required to act with far more diligence and good faith than existed here,” Boasberg wrote in his order.

Kaardal’s notice of appeal is the latest action in the dispute.

His lawyers did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan