|
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a bar complaint against Michael Teter, Director of The 65 Project, for abusing the attorney grievance process to seek misconduct sanctions against lawyers associated with President Trump.
AFL’s complaint, filed on behalf of Stefan Passantino, outlines the following reasons for the Utah State Bar to open an investigation:
Apparent Violation of Rule 8.4: Mr. Teter’s conduct appears to have violated Rule 8.4 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct by, among other things, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by seeking to punish lawyers associated with a single client. Apparent Violation of Rule 301 of the Rules Governing the Utah State Bar: Mr. Teter’s conduct appears to have violated Rule 301 of the Rules Governing the Utah State Bar by, among other things, abusing the attorney grievance process to create a “culture of deterrence” and ascribing class-wide misconduct against anyone who seeks to represent President Donald J. Trump, and by seeking sanctions for an improper purpose—namely, based on their representation or affiliation with President Trump. Conduct that appears to be contrary to the standards of professionalism and civility envisioned by the Rules of Professional Conduct: Mr. Teter’s boilerplate complaints reflect a view that people should be punished for representing certain clients and causes.
The 65 Project was formed for the express purpose of “disbarring Trump-aligned attorneys” and “Trump’s legal allies.” At the time it was formed, Mr. Teter told CNN that “[c]reating a system of deterrence requires that people know these complaints have been filed.” In the last several years, Teter has made good on his promise, filing nearly 100 ethics complaints against lawyers aligned with President Trump, signing them all himself.
Among these complaints was one against Mr. Passantino. On February 15, 2023, Teter accused Mr. Passantino of providing deficient representation to Cassidy Hutchinson in front of the January 6 Committee. In the complaint, Teter alleged that Mr. Passantino sought “to obstruct the Select Committee’s inquiry to uncover the full context of the January 6 attack on our nation’s Capitol.” He claimed that AFL’s client breached confidentiality, advised his client to perjure herself, and sought to undermine the administration of justice.
But Teter had no firsthand knowledge of any of the accusations he made, which have now been proven false by the work of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight. In fact, most of the language in the complaint was boilerplate language used in many of his other complaints. The only allegations that were specific to Mr. Passantino relied entirely on allegations of the January 6 Committee, hearing transcripts, and one CNN news article that relied entirely on anonymous “sources.”
Mr. Passantino represented Ms. Hutchinson in the leadup to her testimony before the House Select Committee on January 6. This month, the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight exposed that — far from being told to lie by Mr. Passantino — Ms. Hutchinson was communicating with, and being coached by, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney without AFL’s client’s knowledge. Following this revelation, AFL filed a bar complaint against Liz Cheney on behalf of Mr. Passantino for secretly communicating with Ms. Hutchinson without his knowledge or consent.
The communication and coordination between Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. Cheney brings into question Ms. Hutchinson’s September 2022 interview with the January 6 Committee, where she criticized Mr. Passantino’s representation which formed a large part of the “factual” basis for Mr. Teter’s complaint.
Mr. Teter’s allegations that Mr. Passantino was deficient in his representation of Ms. Hutchinson have been proven false. Congress has confirmed that Cassidy Hutchinson was acting on the advice of Liz Cheney, not Mr. Passantino, when testifying before the House Select Committee on January 6.
Last month, The 65 Project began running advertisements online and in legal journals in swing states with the message: “Don’t lose your law license because of Trump.” These ads appear to seek to intimidate lawyers who might be inclined to represent President Trump in the future from doing so.
Mr. Teter’s numerous misconduct complaints appear to be based on a simple premise: attorneys should not represent President Trump or anyone associated with him, and President Trump and his associates are not entitled to legal representation or zealous advocacy.
Mr. Passantino and the other attorneys attacked by Mr. Teter and other, similarly motivated groups, sought to represent their clients in the face of widespread condemnation both inside and outside of the legal profession. They embody the highest ideal of the legal profession: that, in our system, everyone is entitled to legal representation.
Mr. Teter’s boilerplate complaints appear to exhibit a fundamental lack of professionalism toward his fellow lawyers and an extreme disdain for President Trump and his associates. His underlying message is clear: Some people are not worthy of representation, and those who dare to represent them will be punished.
It appears that Mr. Teter sought misconduct sanctions against Mr. Passantino, and many others, for an improper purpose. He appears to have abused the grievance process to treat these attorneys uniformly, as a class, with the intention of creating a “culture of deterrence” and impacting an immeasurable number of attorneys who might represent President Trump in the future.
AFL recently launched an investigation into The 65 Project’s involvement with the Biden-Harris Department of Justice. AFL remains committed to promoting integrity and fairness in the legal profession, and protecting lawyers’ rights to represent their clients without fear of retribution.
Statement from Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Executive Director:
|
