Skip to main content

D.C. Bar Regulators Object to Rudy Giuliani’s Plan to Call Conservative Lawyers and 2020 Election Deniers to His Defense

Rudy Giuliani speaks to the press about various lawsuits related to the 2020 election inside the Republican National Committee's headquarters on November 19, 2020. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.)

Rudy Giuliani speaks to the press about various lawsuits related to the 2020 election inside the Republican National Committee’s headquarters on November 19, 2020. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.)

Washington, D.C. attorney conduct regulators on Tuesday objected to Rudy Giuliani’s plans to call a lengthy list of conservative attorneys and 2020 election deniers as witnesses at an upcoming hearing that will probe whether Giuliani should keep his law license.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Giuliani’s attorneys recently propagated a list that originally included Doug Mastriano, Christina Bobb, Peter Navarro, Jenna Ellis, Corey Lewandowski, and Pam Bondi as witnesses (among others).  Those individuals would testify, according to Giuliani, about the genesis and trajectory of his failed pro-Trump litigation strategy surrounding the 2020 election. A revised witness list later removed Bondi’s name from consideration after the publication of our original report.

Regulators with the D.C. bar’s disciplinary counsel office responded that with two exceptions, Giuliani’s lawyers failed to file the necessary expert witness reports for several of the named witnesses who appeared to be poised to provide expert testimony.

Specifically, the regulators’ filing states that Giuliani had “not provided” any expert report whatsoever for Col. Phil Waldron, who Giuliani said would “testify as to the methods that were employed by staff to analyze the nature of the irregularities and alleged voting illegalities”; Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, who Giulani asserted would “testify as to the statistical analysis as to voting results”; and Russell Ramsland, who Giuliani claimed would “testify as to statistical analyses of the then available voting records.”

None of the elections cases pressed by Giuliani or any of Trump’s lawyers were successful. As Law&Crime reported in 2020, Ramsland claimed he tallied Michigan precinct returns and concluded that the reported vote totals exceeded the number of residents in the jurisdictions in question. The problem was that Ramsland was comparing Michigan’s election returns with similarly named towns in another state: Minnesota. The confusion apparently occurred because of an unfamiliarity with the proper postal codes for each state. For the record, Minnesota is “MN,” and Michigan is “MI.”

Ramsland “candidly admitted his lack of relevant knowledge, education and experience” necessary to formulate his opinions, according to a court document that rubbished one of many 2020 election-related lawsuits in which he was cited.

Ramsland was also accused in that same filing of “parroting analyses from other unidentified individuals who claim to possess expertise that he does not.”  That mimeographing of random opinions was a logical hop, skip, and jump too far to be perceived as credible in a court of law.

Despite the widespread excoriation of Ramsland’s theories, Giuliani wants Ramsland to testify on his behalf, and regulatory authorities say an expert witness report must be memorialized on the record before that happens.

When cornered about the lack of an expert report, Giuliani’s counsel is said in Tuesday’s filing to have demurred:

Respondent’s counsel has suggested to Disciplinary Counsel that they might not call these three witnesses as experts, but the cryptic descriptions quoted from Respondent’s witness list indicates that they will be asked to give expert opinions. Disciplinary Counsel objects to these three witnesses being offered as experts based on Respondent’s failure to provide an expert report of any kind. If Respondent intends to call these witnesses to summarize voluminous documents, then Respondent must make those documents available for examination by Disciplinary Counsel. See Fed. R. Evid. 1006. That has not occurred to date. Unless that occurs in a timely manner, then Disciplinary Counsel objects to Respondent calling these witnesses to provide summaries.

As noted above, regulators said two “partial exceptions” to the lack of expert reports did, indeed, exist.

Giuliani wants Peter Navarro to “testify as to his extensive analysis of voting irregularities and alleged illegalities.” Giuliani also wants John Droz Jr. to “testify as to his report on irregularities and improprieties in the Pennsylvania election.”  Joann Miller is listed as a witness who “assisted” Navarro.

Prosecutors said Miller would likely provided factual testimony and not “opinions.” Therefore, no expert report was necessary as to her testimony.

Two reports prepared by Droz and Navarro were on the record, but disciplinary counsel said “both reports lack the full contents of expert reports, particularly the witnesses’ qualifications” and a certification required by a rule of civil procedure.

“Without this information, Disciplinary Counsel objects to these witnesses being offered as experts,” Tuesday’s objection asserts. “Disciplinary Counsel would not object were the missing information supplied promptly.”

A few other issues were also referenced in Tuesday’s filing.

One is that Giuliani “provided no contact information for any of witnesses on his witness list.”  Disciplinary counsel asked Giuliani to “immediately supply it.”

Giuliani also argued that one of the witnesses who might be called against him was “biased.” That witness, Matthew Sanderson, “has represented a Republican organization, The Lincoln Project, which [Giuliani] publicly claimed helped organize the January 6 incident at the Capitol.”  Disciplinary counsel responded by noting that Sanderson’s expert report had already been provided to Giuliani and that Sanderson probably wouldn’t be called as a witness at an upcoming disciplinary hearing.  Still, the authorities wrote that they wanted to preserve the ability call Sanderson should they suddenly deem it necessary.

The Washington, D.C. regulatory case against Giuliani is akin to the concept of reciprocal discipline. It alleges that Giuliani violated professional conduct rules in the Keystone State when he argued Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Authorities in D.C. can discipline him, according to reciprocal discipline rules, because a violation in one jurisdiction automatically triggers a domino effect proceeding in another.

A memorandum document filed by D.C. bar regulators accuses Giuliani of filing “various claims” in Pennsylvania “without any factual or legal basis for doing so, including that election fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election and asking the Court to invalidate up to 1.5 million votes.” Accordingly, Giuliani violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, according to D.C. bar authorities.

Tuesday’s objection by the regulatory authorities is available here.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime:

Aaron Keller holds a juris doctor degree from the University of New Hampshire School of Law and a broadcast journalism degree from Syracuse University. He is a former anchor and executive producer for the Law&Crime Network and is now deputy editor-in-chief for the Law&Crime website. DISCLAIMER:  This website is for general informational purposes only. You should not rely on it for legal advice. Reading this site or interacting with the author via this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. This website is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Speak to a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction for legal advice and representation relevant to your situation.