Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, along with several allies of former President Donald Trump and alleged fake electors, pleaded not guilty in Maricopa County court for their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Giuliani appeared virtually after being served with notice of his indictment after his 80th birthday party on Friday night. The judge granted the prosecution's motion for Giuliani's release conditions to require him to show up in person in Arizona to be booked within 30 days, as well as a $10,000 secured appearance bond. Giuliani responded to prosecutors by saying he hasn't been hiding from anyone and blamed the difficulty of accepting service on the threats he's faced. The judge threatened to mute Giuliani during the arraignment when he started going into a meandering story about the history of alleged threats against him. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes last month announced charges against 11 named alleged fake electors and seven people whose names are redacted in the filing for their alleged role in efforts to subvert Joe Biden's 2020 victory in the state. Arizona is the third state to pursue election interference charges related to the 2020 election.
In a separate development, the District of Columbia's Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for signing multiple frivolous pleadings in violation of Pennsylvania Rule 3.1. The rule prohibits counsel from making frivolous arguments. Disciplinary authorities must balance the need to prevent frivolous filings with a lawyer's obligations to the client. Courts and disciplinary authorities rarely investigate claims based solely on alleged violations of Rule 3.1. Charges for filing frivolous pleadings are often intertwined with an award of sanctions and claims of violations of other rules. The Maryland Courts encourage lawyers to be creative but reasonable, as creativity is the lifeblood of the law. [fbf0810e] [db094d5f]
An appeals court in Melbourne has upheld a decision finding a barrister guilty of professional misconduct for making an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud in a costs dispute. The barrister had challenged the decision, but the appeal was rejected. The case involved a Melbourne barrister who was found guilty of professional misconduct for making an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud in a costs dispute. The barrister had appealed the decision, but the appeals court upheld the finding of professional misconduct. The barrister's allegation of fraud was found to be unsubstantiated, leading to the finding of professional misconduct. [b3a2532c]