The California Supreme Court officially disbarred President Donald Trump’s former attorney, John Eastman, last week over his work assisting Trump to dispute the 2020 election results. Eastman merely provided options for Trump to consider in a legal memo — some of which would have resulted in Joe Biden winning the election — and drafted and filed a brief for him in the election challenge Texas v. Pennsylvania. In contrast, none of the attorneys involved in the 2000 election challenge representing Al Gore over “hanging chads” in Florida were disciplined.
Meanwhile, leftist California attorneys such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and former U.S. Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell (CA-14) are given a free pass. Bar complaints have been filed against them, primarily over their actions in Congress, but they were ignored. The main accusation against Schiff is related to Michael Atkinson, who served as the Intelligence Community Inspector General from 2018 to 2020, playing a central role in handling the 2019 Ukraine whistleblower complaint that became the basis for Trump's first impeachment, which Schiff led as then-House Intelligence Committee chairman. Atkinson reviewed the complaint about Trump's July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
Recently released transcripts of Atkinson's closed-door 2019 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, which was kept secret for years under Schiff's committee, have now been declassified. They show details about the whistleblower's prior contacts with Schiff's staff.
Republicans said Schiff falsely implied that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower, raising concerns about their conversation. They contend that Atkinson’s work contained procedural irregularities, relied on hearsay and interviewed only a small number of people with potential biases, advancing the complaint in ways that helped Schiff and Democrats.
A Democratic staffer whistleblower claimed that Schiff held a staff meeting where he directed leaks of classified derogatory Trump-Russia information to smear Trump. The goal, according to the whistleblower, was to use it "to indict President Trump." The whistleblower described the leaks as "illegal, unethical and treasonous," objected during the meeting and claimed others reassured participants they "would not be caught."
In January 2023, after Republicans gained the House majority, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy formally removed Schiff and Swalwell from the committee. McCarthy said Schiff was removed because of his repeated false public statements about Trump-Russia collusion, his lack of integrity with classified information and public statements and lack of trustworthiness with sensitive intelligence. McCarthy said Schiff “openly lied to the American people” when he chaired the intelligence panel. In June 2023, the House censured Schiff for misleading the public on Russia collusion and other conduct.
McCarthy said he removed Swalwell from the committee due to his past ties to a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, a woman named Fang Fang with whom he allegedly had an affair, making him unfit for the committee that oversees America’s most sensitive intelligence matters. McCarthy said that based on the FBI briefing he received, Swalwell “couldn’t get a security clearance in the private sector,” so he should not be given access to “the secrets of America.”
Despite the new rape accusations against Swalwell, the State Bar of California (SBC) has announced no investigation into him, even though it has suspended other attorneys accused of rape before conviction.
In 2025, the Federal Housing Finance Agency criminally referred Schiff to the DOJ for alleged mortgage fraud involving properties in Maryland and California between 2003 and 2019. He was accused of claiming the same property as a primary residence on multiple documents to obtain better loan terms and tax benefits while treating another home as primary.
Schiff likely violated several of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. One is Rule 8.4, Misconduct, which includes “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” and “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” His role in oversight and impeachment proceedings, which have quasi-judicial elements, could violate Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. His public statements could materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding, the impeachment, violating Rule 3.6 on Trial Publicity.
The mortgage fraud allegations could implicate Rule 8.4(b), “Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer” as well as the portion of Rule 8.4 prohibiting dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Swalwell similarly may have violated Rule 8.4, and the allegation of rape from a former staffer could violate Rule 8.4.1, Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation. Additionally, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is grounds for discipline under the Business and Professions Code § 6106, which is part of the State Bar Act.
Ironically, most of the counts against Eastman fell under moral turpitude, but Eastman has not been convicted of a crime — nor did the SBC even cite the ongoing prosecutions against him. Attorneys are frequently disciplined for conduct unrelated to the practice of law, such as sexual assault and tax evasion — two of the exact things Schiff and Swalwell are accused of.
Other leftist attorneys around the country are also getting free passes from state bars. Marc Elias, working with Perkins Coie, paid Fusion GPS to produce the Steele dossier and concealed the payment structure in FEC filings. The FEC fined the DNC and Clinton campaign for misreporting the payments as legal services. Special Counsel John Durham prosecuted Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI about whether he was representing the Clinton campaign. Sussmann was later acquitted. Andrew Weissmann aggressively prosecuted Arthur Andersen, destroying the company, but the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction. Critics accused Weissman of Brady violations — failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense and eliciting false testimony from a key government witness. Other witnesses testified that they felt pressured by the prosecution.
The disbarment of Eastman has set a terrible precedent. The law has been used to punish people merely for practicing their profession. Fortunately, the adults on the U.S. Supreme Court are likely to take his appeal. Although they only accept about 80 cases a year, they favor high-profile cases. This issue personally relates to them as lawyers, and Eastman is widely considered the top constitutional scholar on the right.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member