Ethical Complaints Against Kari Lake’s Attorneys Thrown Out

In a notable decision, a disciplinary panel ruled on Monday that two attorneys representing Kari Lake will not face sanctions for their role in a failed lawsuit aimed at banning electronic tabulators from the 2022 election in Arizona.

This ruling, authored by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, follows a lengthy hearing held in June. The three-member panel dismissed complaints brought forth by the Arizona State Bar, contending that the Bar failed to provide clear evidence of ethical violations by attorneys Kurt Olsen and Andrew Parker.

Olsen and Parker had represented Lake — a Republican currently vying for a U.S. Senate seat — and former Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem in a lawsuit claiming that the tabulators were “hackable.” They sought an injunction preventing the use of electronic systems for counting ballots, despite Arizona law mandating their use.

The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi in August 2022, who characterized the claims as speculative and ordered sanctions of $122,000 against the attorneys. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld this decision, deeming the case “frivolous.”

Despite these setbacks, the disciplinary panel determined that the evidence presented by the State Bar did not satisfy the burden of proof required for a finding of professional misconduct. Judge Downie noted that mere errors in legal arguments do not constitute ethical violations, emphasizing the necessity for substantial evidence to support any claims against the attorneys.

The State Bar had argued that the attorneys lacked a good faith basis to claim that banning tabulators shortly before the election would cause minimal harm. However, Downie articulated that the attorneys’ claims could not be construed as groundless when viewed in the context of the overall argument they presented.

Parker, in a statement to Arizona Mirror, lauded the ruling as a reinforcement of fundamental legal principles. He criticized the misuse of state agencies to suppress legitimate legal arguments, emphasizing the importance of protecting the right to challenge prevailing opinions in court.

In response to the panel’s decision, Lake celebrated on social media, declaring it a victory against what she viewed as politicization within the legal system. She expressed solidarity with fellow attorneys tackling challenging cases that uphold democratic principles.

This decision contrasts with previous findings against other attorneys involved in similar litigation, highlighting the complexities and challenges associated with legal ethics in politically charged cases.