“With the DOJ bringing frivolous lawsuits against the states and election boards that are clearly an attempt to interfere with the election, can these attorneys be disbarred?” — Karen Hi Karen, Yes, they can be.

Lawyers have faced bar discipline stemming from their support of President Donald Trump’s failed effort to overturn the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden. The final word on those disciplinary proceedings is still unfolding, including with John Eastman’s pending Supreme Court petition challenging his California disbarment. I mention that timing factor to underscore that these cases can take years to resolve.

With that in mind, there is an effort to sanction Justice Department lawyers who sued to intervene in Alaska’s U.S. Senate contest just ahead of Election Day. Their Oct. 22 complaint seeks to make a federal case out of the concern that GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan could lose a key race to Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, due to the presence on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan, whom the DOJ accused of running “with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him.”

The lawsuit, which attempts to block the state from certifying the results if the Republican incumbent loses, has been uniformly panned by election law experts. An amicus brief from University of California at Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen collects quotes from scholars across the political spectrum who have called the Justice Department’s legal argument “one of the worst I have ever seen,” “completely meritless,” “scraping the bottom of the barrel,” a “desperation play” that has “zero basis in the law,” “one of the weakest lawsuits I’ve ever seen,” “uniquely embarrassing, likely filed only because Trump himself insisted on it” and “unconstitutional and unprecedented.”

Hasen, who directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project, said in his brief that the federal government’s “error-filled complaint seeks to derail Alaska’s normal and constitutionally protected processes for certifying election results, and it includes the preposterous argument that the preamble to a federal voter statute mentioning ‘integrity’ grants the federal government vast powers to interfere with state election processes (and who knows what else).”A motion from a group led by the League of Women Voters argued that the judge presiding over the case, Obama appointee Sharon Gleason, should not only dismiss the “frivolous, election-eve lawsuit,” but also sanction the lawyers who brought it.

The voting rights coalition said the court “would do American democracy and the rule of law a further service by considering Rule 11 sanctions against the attorneys who signed the Complaint in the name of the United States Department of Justice.”Rule 11 is the federal civil procedure rule that governs frivolous and dishonest court filings and sanctions for bringing them.

The DOJ’s complaint was signed by Stanley Woodward, a high-ranking government lawyer in Trump’s second term who has been pressing the president’s priorities in court and previously represented various Trump-aligned figures while in private practice, and Alaska-based prosecutor E. Bryan Wilson.

Woodward and Wilson filed an amended complaint on Thursday that cited this week’s reporting from The New York Times that said the Peltola campaign worked with people trying to recruit the other Sullivan to run. The new complaint does not quote the Times’ caveat that “Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska.”Whatever the political effect of the Times’ reporting, it doesn’t retroactively make the DOJ’s suit more legally meritorious, nor does it retroactively make the filing of that suit more ethical.

We don’t know yet how Gleason will rule (or what will happen on any appeal), or whether she will impose sanctions. Even if she does, that wouldn’t necessarily endanger the attorneys’ law licenses. Whether that happens is up to the state bars and courts where they are licensed.

Earlier this year, watchdog group Campaign for Accountability filed a bar complaint against Woodward in the District of Columbia, where he is licensed, asking the authorities there to investigate potential ethics violations over his involvement in the “anti-weaponization fund,” which the group said would compensate “the same January 6 defendants and Trump associates he previously represented as a private defense attorney.”Attorney General Todd Blanche said the DOJ wasn’t moving forward with the fund, but pardoned Jan. 6 defendants, including Woodward’s former clients, are still pressing compensation claims.

At a hearing Friday in the protracted litigation over the East Potomac golf course, with Woodward representing the government, the Washington, D.C., judge handling that contentious case reportedly began by reading the D.C. bar’s rule about candor to the court.

Keep in mind that disbarment is the most extreme form of attorney discipline. Other options range from reprimand to suspension. Again, whether any discipline comes from current events could take years to know.