Seventeen Current and Former Trump Attorneys Support Eastman
What happens to the right to counsel when representing a controversial client can bring years of disciplinary proceedings? Seventeen current and former attorneys for President Trump and his associates put that question at the center of their amicus brief supporting Supreme Court review of John Eastman’s disbarment.
Submitted on October 13, 2026, in Eastman v. State Bar of California, No. 26-336, the brief argues that political advocacy organizations exercised improper influence over California’s investigation and prosecution. It uses the term barfare to describe what the amici regard as the use of professional discipline to punish opposing lawyers and deter future representation. Their argument concerns both the independence of disciplinary authorities and the consequences for clients seeking counsel. Read the interests and summary (pp. 1–4).
This guide follows the amici’s account and arguments, including their allegations about outside organizations. Those allegations are presented as claims made in the brief. For the underlying petition, see our earlier reader’s guide.
Who submitted the brief?
The amici say that they have experienced disciplinary complaints and public campaigns arising from their representation of Trump or people and organizations associated with him. They present Eastman’s case as part of a broader problem that affects their own work. America First Policy Institute serves as counsel, with Nicholas J. Wanic identified as counsel of record. The brief’s separate appendix lists the seventeen amici and reproduces complaints, correspondence, and other materials supporting their account. Read the statement of interest (pp. 1–2).
The seventeen amici
Cleta Mitchell; Christina Bobb; Kurt Hilbert; Alex Kaufman; James R. Troupis; Kevin Koons; Brandon Johnson; Stefan Passantino; Jesse Binnall; Sidney Powell; William Bradley Carver; Ed Martin; Bruce Marks; Erick Kaardal; Dan Eastman; Jenna Ellis; and Michael D. Dean.
1. How do the amici describe the complaints against Eastman?
The first part focuses on States United Democracy Center (SUDC) and Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD). According to the brief, Eastman’s disciplinary proceedings began with complaints from these advocacy organizations, rather than a dissatisfied client or a court that had sanctioned his work. The amici argue that the complaints principally treated disagreement with his constitutional and election-law positions as evidence that he lacked a good-faith basis for advancing them. Read the opening argument (pp. 5–6).
The brief gives two examples. The first is Eastman’s work in Texas v. Pennsylvania, where SUDC challenged his position as inconsistent with established principles governing jurisdiction and election litigation. The amici respond that state attorneys general and members of Congress supported related arguments. They also emphasize that the Supreme Court denied leave to file for lack of standing without imposing sanctions. Their point is that an unsuccessful argument should not automatically be treated as professional misconduct.
The second example concerns Eastman’s advice about the Vice President’s role in the electoral count. The amici cite scholarship questioning aspects of the Electoral Count Act or examining the allocation of authority under the Twelfth Amendment. They contend that these debates supplied a basis for legal advocacy even though other lawyers strongly rejected Eastman’s conclusions. This is the brief’s defense of the legitimacy of advancing disputed theories; it does not identify a ruling accepting Eastman’s proposed course of action. Read the two examples (pp. 6–8).
2. What evidence of outside influence does the brief identify?
The amici’s objection goes beyond the submission of complaints. They allege that SUDC and LDAD continued to supply legal analysis, factual material, and investigative assistance to California’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel, or OCTC, and materially shaped its case. They cite SUDC’s original October 2021 complaint and follow-up letters in November 2021 and April 2022. In their account, bar investigators treated those submissions as the beginning of their inquiry and invited more information. Read the correspondence discussion (pp. 8–9).
The correspondence and parallels the amici cite
The brief then compares the organizations’ complaints with the disciplinary charges. It points to the treatment of a statistical claim in Texas v. Pennsylvania, the use of California Business and Professions Code § 6106, and allegations that Eastman knew certain representations were false or was grossly negligent in failing to know. It also identifies similar descriptions of Eastman’s statements about voting machines and competing electoral slates. The amici argue that these parallels show adoption of the complainants’ theories and factual framing. That asserted inference is central to their claim that OCTC failed to exercise independent judgment. Read the comparisons (pp. 10–11).
LDAD’s contribution, the brief says, included a detailed chronology sent to a State Bar investigator in March 2022 for the investigation staff’s use. The amici compare that chronology with the subjects of OCTC’s later investigative questions and charges. They also cite the groups’ joint complaint in the District of Columbia and public acknowledgments of their assistance. Taken together, they argue, these materials show participation in developing the prosecution, rather than an outside complaint followed by an independent inquiry. Read the LDAD discussion (pp. 12–13) and the email and chronology in Appendix C (beginning at p. 394a).
3. Why do the amici call this a broader campaign?
The second part of the brief places Eastman’s case alongside complaints against other Trump attorneys. It cites SUDC’s and LDAD’s public statements advocating professional sanctions, their complaints in multiple jurisdictions, and the involvement of former government officials. It also discusses The 65 Project, an organization pursuing disciplinary complaints against lawyers involved in post-election litigation. The amici interpret the organizations’ stated goals and public campaigns as efforts to reduce the number of lawyers willing to undertake similar representations. Read the campaign argument (pp. 14–17).
The brief draws particular attention to statements attributed in an Axios report to people associated with The 65 Project about deterrence and damage to lawyers’ professional standing. The amici use these statements to support their claim about motive. The proposed harm, in their account, does not depend entirely on whether a complaint ultimately produces discipline: the expense, publicity, and uncertainty of defending a license can themselves discourage representation. Read the deterrence discussion (pp. 17–20).
Christina Bobb and Kurt Hilbert: the examples the brief develops
Christina Bobb: The brief describes SUDC’s assistance to Arizona prosecutors and says an inadvertent discovery disclosure revealed its role. It reports that Bobb spent nearly $350,000 defending a criminal prosecution and describes a dismissal based on denial of a procedural right under Arizona law. It separately cites the closure of a California bar investigation. The appendix’s California letter says that further action was not warranted and closes the matter without prejudice to later proceedings; it is not an adjudication of every allegation discussed in the brief. Read the brief’s account (pp. 18–19) and the California letter (pp. 427a–428a).
Kurt Hilbert: The brief says The 65 Project complained about his representation in Trump v. Kemp despite the judge’s praise for his advocacy. The reproduced transcript also shows the judge disagreeing with his position; the compliment concerned his presentation. Georgia’s disciplinary board later dismissed the grievance for insufficient evidence to justify formal proceedings. The brief reports approximately $50,000 in legal fees and related losses, using his experience to illustrate costs that can remain after a complaint is dismissed. Read the brief’s account (pp. 19–20) and the transcript and dismissal letter (pp. 429a–434a).
4. What legal principles do the amici invoke?
The brief identifies three consequences of the outside participation it alleges: compromised disciplinary judgment, reduced access to counsel, and diminished willingness to advance novel legal arguments. These concerns form its third main argument for review. Read the framework (pp. 20–21).
On disciplinary independence, the amici rely on In re Ruffalo for the application of procedural due process to attorney discipline. They draw analogies to Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton, concerning an interested party’s counsel prosecuting criminal contempt, and Marshall v. Jerrico, concerning improper interests in enforcement decisions. They argue that political adversaries’ participation in developing a disciplinary prosecution undermines the independent judgment those principles require. These cases supply the brief’s reasoning by analogy; the brief asks the Court to apply that reasoning to the conduct alleged here. Read the due-process argument (pp. 22–23).
On access to counsel, the brief invokes NAACP v. Button, In re Primus, and other decisions connecting legal representation with expressive association and petitioning. It also cites BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB for the First Amendment interests served by reasonably based litigation even when it fails. The amici argue that imposing professional risks on lawyers because of their clients’ politics burdens the clients’ ability to bring claims as well as the lawyers’ livelihoods. Read the representation argument (pp. 23–24).
5. Where does the brief draw the line between advocacy and misconduct?
The amici emphasize California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1, which permits good-faith arguments to extend, modify, or reverse existing law. They cite Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC against reasoning backward from a claim’s failure to the conclusion that it must have been unreasonable at the outset. Applied to Eastman, their position is that rejection of his theories does not by itself establish dishonesty or professional misconduct. Read the good-faith advocacy discussion (pp. 24–25).
The brief again points to supporting lawyers and legal scholarship, and to Congress’s 2022 revision of the Electoral Count Act. The amici regard the revisions and legislators’ descriptions of ambiguities as support for their argument that the earlier statute presented genuine interpretive questions. That is their interpretation of the reform’s significance, rather than a claim that Congress adopted Eastman’s proposed interpretation.
They also emphasize courts’ existing ability to address frivolous filings and abusive conduct through Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and inherent authority. Citing Cooter & Gell, Roadway Express, and Chambers, they argue that courts familiar with the underlying record are well placed to evaluate advocacy in context. Their argument thus recognizes sanctions for misconduct while challenging what they describe as politically driven discipline for disputed legal positions. Read the statutory-reform and sanctions discussion (pp. 26–27).
What do the amici ask the Court to do?
The conclusion asks the Supreme Court to grant Eastman’s petition. The amici seek review to protect the independence of attorney discipline, preserve access to counsel, and distinguish good-faith legal advocacy from sanctionable misconduct. Their brief offers an account of the disciplinary process and its broader consequences as reasons for taking the case. Read the conclusion (p. 28).
Read the original document
The complete brief on the Supreme Court’s website contains 40 PDF pages. Printed page 1 is PDF page 13. Source links use the PDF viewer’s page count.
Open the brief in this page
Open the full PDF in a separate tab to use your browser’s search, print, or download controls.
The separate appendix includes the amici list and supporting documents.
This guide follows the brief’s arguments and descriptions of the proceedings. Page references are to the brief’s printed pages; links open the corresponding PDF pages.
For the underlying petition, see our earlier reader’s guide.
A short glossary
Amici curiae: “Friends of the court”: nonparties who submit a brief to assist the Court.
Certiorari: Supreme Court review of a lower court’s decision.
Vacate: Set aside a judgment.
OCTC: California’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel.
Barfare: The amici’s term for using professional discipline to punish opposing lawyers and deter representation.