## Facts

- Rudolph W. Giuliani was admitted to the New York bar in 1969 and maintained an office within the First Judicial Department.
- The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department moved for immediate interim suspension under Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1240.9(a)(5), before formal charges were filed.
- The motion alleged Giuliani violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.3(a) (candor to tribunal), 4.1 (truthfulness to others), 8.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (fitness).
- The alleged misconduct arose from Giuliani’s work as counsel for Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election.
- The court found “uncontroverted evidence” that Giuliani communicated demonstrably false and misleading factual statements to courts, legislators, and the public to support claims of widespread voter fraud.
- Examples cited included: representing in federal court that a case involved “fraud” when the operative pleading did not assert a fraud claim; repeating inaccurate absentee-ballot numerical claims suggesting hundreds of thousands of fabricated ballots; and asserting large numbers of votes by deceased persons, minors, or non-citizens without evidentiary support.
- The court relied on the repetition of claims despite contrary official data and prior refutation as evidence of knowledge or at least reckless disregard.

## Issues

1. Whether there was “uncontroverted evidence” of professional misconduct warranting interim suspension under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1240.9(a)(5).
2. Whether disciplining Giuliani for his statements would violate the First Amendment because the statements were made in a political context.
3. Whether interim suspension was immediately necessary to protect the public interest pending full disciplinary proceedings.

## Decision

- The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion and suspended Giuliani from the practice of law in New York effective immediately, pending further proceedings.
- The court held the record showed uncontroverted evidence that Giuliani made knowingly false and misleading factual statements, violating RPC 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(h).
- The court found the conduct immediately threatened the public interest, given its relationship to the integrity of the electoral process and the public weight carried by a lawyer’s assertions.
- The court rejected constitutional defenses, holding attorney speech made in a professional capacity may be regulated more strictly, and the rules at issue targeted knowing misrepresentations rather than protected opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Interim suspension under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1240.9(a)(5) is an extraordinary remedy requiring uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct that immediately threatens the public interest.
- Attorney discipline is protective rather than punitive, aimed at safeguarding the public and the integrity of the profession.
- RPC 3.3(a) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal.
- RPC 4.1 prohibits knowingly false statements of material fact or law to third persons in the course of representing a client.
- RPC 8.4(c) proscribes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(h) reaches conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness.
- The First Amendment does not immunize an attorney, acting as an attorney, from discipline for knowing factual misrepresentations; disciplinary rules may distinguish between protected opinion and false factual assertions.

## Conclusion

The court ordered Giuliani’s immediate interim suspension after finding uncontroverted evidence that, as counsel in post-election matters, he knowingly made demonstrably false factual claims to tribunals, legislators, and the public, and that the misconduct posed an immediate threat to the public interest.


In re Giuliani, 197 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2021)