An attorney for a group of Republicans who filed a lawsuit late last year seeking to block the certification of the 2020 election is appealing a disciplinary ruling against him over his involvement in the case.
Erick Kaardal said in a court filing on Wednesday that he would appeal U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s ruling last month that referred him to the D.C. federal court’s disciplinary panel.
Boasberg had castigated Kaardal’s lawsuit for seeking to “invalidate the election and prevent the electoral votes from being counted” and asked the panel to investigate whether Kaardal had acted in bad faith in the lawsuit.
“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,” wrote Boasberg, who was appointed to the court by former President Obama.
If the judge’s ruling stands, the grievances committee will decide whether to discipline Kaardal. If it does, it has the authority to reprimand, suspend or even disbar him.
Kaardal filed the lawsuit in December on behalf of Republican voters and organizations in several battleground states that President Biden won over former President Trump. The complaint made baseless allegations of voter fraud that had been touted by Trump in the weeks leading up to the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
On Jan. 4, two days before Congress was set to certify the results, Boasberg denied the lawsuit’s effort to overturn the election. In his decision, Boasberg rejected the lawsuit’s claims of voter fraud and various arguments that longstanding state and federal election rules were unconstitutional.
“Plaintiffs’ theory that all of these laws are unconstitutional and that the Court should instead require state legislatures themselves to certify every Presidential election lies somewhere between a willful misreading of the Constitution and fantasy,” the judge wrote.
Through his own attorney, Kaardal argued in February that he should not be referred to the grievances committee because the lawsuit had not been filed in bad faith.
“In the end, Mr. Kaardal has not engaged in conduct that warrants the imposition of discipline,” his lawyer wrote. “Moreover, a significant chilling effect on future litigants would occur if this Court refers Mr. Kaardal to the Committee for advancing his clients’ good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”