Dr. John Eastman

Petition to California Supreme Court challenging Cal Bar disbarment recommendation

Dr. John Eastman — Fri, 14 Nov 2025 17:56:00 GMT

We petitioned the California Supreme Court, asking it to reject the California Bar Court’s disbarment recommendation. The petition is attached. The major First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition the Government arguments are contained in the response we filed to the Cal Bar’s own petition. That is also attached.

Dr. Eastman Petition to California Supreme Court

23.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Dr. Eastman Answer to Cal Bar's Petition

1.55MB ∙ PDF file

Download

California Bar Ruling

Dr. John Eastman — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 01:12:51 GMT

Well, after an investigation that started 2 1/2 years ago when a leftist advocacy organization filed a bar complaint against me, and after 6 months of my responding to the Bar investigators demand for information letters, and after a 10-week trial that one commentator bet was the longest and most expensive in bar discipline history, the California Bar Court judge has issued her ruling — during Holy Week, no less — recommending that I be disbarred because, she asserts, that I made misrepresentations of hotly disputed facts and unresolved questions of constitutional law in my representation of former President Trump and his challenges to the illegality of the 2020 election, and because I also made those claims in public speeches, writings, and media appearances in which I highlighted illegality in the election (all of which is constitutionally protected speech). The ruling is here. My closing argument brief responding to every false allegation the Bar attorneys leveled against me, is here. My response to the Bar’s citation of a doctored quotation from a court opinion — just one of the many false claims they made — is here. Astoundingly, the Court repeated that doctored quotation in the opinion.

Over the coming days and weeks, I will be highlighting the evidence that demonstrates the contrary of the findings of misrepresentation made by the Court, and also the aspects of the “trial” that were simply beyond belief. News coverage of the 10-week trial, particularly that by Rachel Alexander at the Arizona Sun Times and in her twitter feed, was extensive. I linked a bunch of the most salient articles at Update #38 on my GiveSendGo website; worth a read so that you can see for yourselves what we were dealing with. A larger list of Rachel Alexander’s articles is attached below, with links. If you are really a glutton for punishment, you can read the trial transcripts — all 32 days of them! — or listen to the audio and then decide for yourselves whether I really had no evidence to support my claims of election illegality.

We will appeal the decision, of course, and hopefully the California Bar Review Court, the California Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court will step in to put a stop to this “lawfare” that has become a serious threat to the First Amendment, the right of controversial clients and causes to legal representation, and more broadly to our adversarial system of justice. Also attached below is the statement put out by my attorneys earlier this evening

03 27 24 Press Release (006)

197KB ∙ PDF file

Download

List Of Rachel Alexander Articles About John Eastman's Bar Trial

137KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Guest Appearance on Huckabee Show

Dr. John Eastman — Fri, 17 Feb 2023 01:42:34 GMT

Details about the show, and local listings, are available here. Our answer to the California Bar’s Notice of Disciplinary Charges is available here. As we note in the news release below, it is “comprehensive and forceful,” taking issue with the “disturbing number of demonstrably false statements” made in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges that was filed by the California Bar on Jan. 26. The answer includes a large amount of the evidence, judicial precedent, historical and scholarly research on which I based my assessment and advice to former President Trump in my representation of him in the wake of the 2020 election.

If you’re able to help me fend off this attack, please visit my legal defense fund site here.

2 16 23 Eastman Press Release

108KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Response to California Bar Investigation

Dr. John Eastman — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 21:27:00 GMT

In October 2021, a group calling itself States United Democracy Center filed a complaint against me with the California bar, demanding that I be disbarred because of my work representing former President Donald Trump. Like the similar complaint filed against me with the Supreme Court of the United States by a group calling itself The 65 Project, the States United Democracy Center’s complaint is full of falsehoods, but the California bar nevertheless announced last March that it was conducting an investigation, the existence of which is supposed to be confidential unless the bar determines, as it astonishingly did here, that the subject of the investigation is a threat to the public. During the course of that investigation, the bar investigators sent me an extraordinary 38-page letter, essentially demanding that I provide them with every bit of evidence and communication to support every line in every memo and communication I made, every complaint and brief I filed on behalf of the President, every statement I made publicly, and every article I published having anything to do with the 2020 election. I provided a fairly comprehensive response of about 100 pages, and incorporating by reference thousands of additional pages in sworn affidavits, expert reports, court decisions, and scholarly articles clearly demonstrating the validity, or at least the tenability, of the claims of election illegality and fraud that I was making and the legal advice I was providing.

Unmoved by that massive amount of evidence, and apparently under intense political pressure to take action against me, see, e.g., this just yesterday, the California bar has nevertheless filed a massive NDC (“Notice of Disciplinary Complaint”) against me today, which, like the States United Democracy Center’s complaint itself, is filled with distortions, half truths, and outright falsehoods. We will respond to each charge in due course, but for now, posted below is the response we provided last September to the Bar’s investigative letter and the new release we put out today.

It will be expensive to defend against this, but I have a top legal team in place. Beyond my own livelihood and First Amendment rights, however, this action poses a threat to the ability of controversial clients or causes to have the kind of zealous legal representation that our adversarial system of justice requires. You can help me fight against this travesty by visiting my legal defense fund site and sending financial support and also prayers.

09 22 22 Eastman Sb Response To Inital Investigation Letter Without Resume Exhibit

1.75MB ∙ PDF file

Download

1 26 23 Eastman Press Release

168KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Response to The 65 Project's SCOTUS Bar Complaint

Dr. John Eastman — Wed, 03 Aug 2022 16:01:04 GMT

The 65 Project, a group of radical Democrat activists (and 1 Never-Trump Republican) filed a bar complaint against me with the Supreme Court of the United States. In it, the Group asks that the Court immediately suspend my SCOTUS bar membership without a hearing or investigation and then ultimately disbar me altogether. This is part of a well-funded effort to attack every attorney who participated in any of the 2020 election challenges. More broadly, the Group has admitted that its goal is “to deter right-wing talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts” to challenge elections, not only by bringing bar complaints but to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and their firms.”

The complaint is full of false statements and deliberate misrepresentations, so we have fired back with a hard-hitting response, which is available below. Epoch Times also has a good write-up, here.

Response to SCOTUS Complaint

619KB ∙ PDF file

Download

OMG, Mrs. Thomas asked me to give an update about election litigation to her group. Stop the Presses!

Dr. John Eastman — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:23:58 GMT

One wonders when the legacy media will quit allowing themselves to be played by false innuendo based on selective leaks from the January 6 Committee. Yesterday, the Washington Post ran with a story that I’d had email communication with Ginni Thomas back in early December 2020. Others have tried to tie that to a statement I reportedly made in an email some weeks later, in which I reportedly stated that “I understand that there is a heated fight underway” at the Supreme Court over whether the Court should take the various election cases that were pending on its docket. Recall that the story about a heated fight at the Court over the election cases was the subject of news accounts at the time. See, e.g., Neil Campbell, Rumors Chief Justice Roberts Shouted Down His Peers Over Texas Case Emerge During Electoral College Vote, Vision Times (Dec. 20, 2020), at https://www.visiontimes.com/2020/12/20/rumors-chief-justice-roberts-shouted-down-his-peers-over-texas-case-emerge-during-electoral-college-vote.html. Whether or not those news accounts were true, I can categorically confirm that at no time did I discuss with Mrs. Thomas or Justice Thomas any matters pending or likely to come before the Court. We have never engaged in such discussions, would not engage in such discussions, and did not do so in December 2020 or anytime else. As for the email communications I had with Mrs. Thomas? As you can see for yourselves, she invited me to give an update about election litigation to a group she met with periodically. Those from the January 6 committee who leaked a false impression about that email should be ashamed of themselves, but the Post should be embarrassed for running a story based on their false innuendo.

20201204 Frontliners Invite

322KB ∙ PDF file

Download