Ethics/Professional Responsibility
Apr. 24, 2026
John Eastman's disbarment was for misconduct, not advocacy
Critics say John Eastman was punished for "zealous advocacy," but the State Bar Court found he violated core duties of candor by misleading tribunals, withholding adverse authority and advancing unsupported factual and legal claims.
Stephen Kaus
Stephen Kaus is a retired judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, where he served for 12 years until 2024. He is now a private arbitrator and mediator. Prior to that, he was a public defender in Contra Costa County and civil litigator in San Francisco.
Critics of John Eastman's disbarment by the California Supreme Court argue that he was punished for "zealous advocacy." That characterization is rhetorically effective, but inaccurate because it disregards the California State Bar Court's actual findings.
Lawyers must remain free to represent controversial clients, challenge election procedures and advance novel constitutional arguments. Our adversarial system depends on it. But Eastman was not disciplin...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In