re: Trump co-defendant Jenna Ellis enters plea deal in Georgia case

quote:

---

Both Powell and Ellis are able to speak to the state of mind of those they were interacting with,

---

That isn’t how it works.

quote:

---

Does this mean Jenna Ellis is more likely to face disbarment as a result of this guilty plea?

---

I think her legal team have strategized about how they can best reduce and avoid sanctions, but the best answer to your question is:

Yes - as compared to being acquitted.
No. - in any conviction after trial (even if it was on the reduced charges to which she plead.)

To explain further, every state has their own rules of professional conduct; however, most all of them are modeled on the ABA rules. ABA

Ellis' censure was based on a Colorado code that doesn't have a direct antecedent to the ABA, namely Colo. RPC 8.4(c), which sets out a duty to the public. More specifically, it was based on false twitter posts and posts made on television shows. Colorado still applied the ABA Standards to the rule to determine if the sanctions should be lesser or greater than the default of Censure. See 23 PDJ004

This plea possibly does these three things:

(1) It sets up an automatic reporting requirement by Ellis for another review. (it is also likely to be the subject of a complaint by Michael Teter)

(2) Changes the type of misconduct from a duty to the public, to a duty to a tribunal.

(3) Established a pattern.

For item 1, that just means she has to do another review. For item 2, it will set up a possible evaluation under Rule 3.03. She can defend in that the legislative body may not have been acting as a tribunal pursuant to 3.03, and she didn't make any statement directly (a point that Bonds makes). I don't know how much the tribunal will want to punish a junior lawyer for the misstatements of senior counsel. By a strict reading, there is still a responsibility, but I'd presume that would be taken into account.

The last point is the one that may be more important. These statements weren't in front of the original tribunal. The standard for dishonest statements ranges from:

quote:

---

Under ABA Standard 5.11(b), disbarment is generally
appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice

---

to

quote:

---

provides that reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other
conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects
on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law

---

Ellis was sanctioned under the lesser standard previously. There is a middle standard, and it looks like that is the most applicable, namely,

quote:

---

Standard 5.12 provides for suspension when a lawyer’s dishonesty implicates criminal
misconduct

---

Consequently, I presume the starting point is likely a suspension. She was given credit last time for "not being counsel of record on any election lawsuits" and this being her first issue of a conduct violation. Because these are made to a legislature, she may also not get the lesser presumptions from the Rosen case that were applied previously.

Other posters mentioned Clinesmith, who receive a 1 year suspension (albeit in DC). I'd think there may be some more mitigating factors with Ellis, but that will be up to the Bar. The fact that she got a concession that her crime is not of "moral turpitude" will likely lessen the penalty. The fact she was a junior counsel and not directly making disclosures (which she maintains in her statement) should also work to her benefit.

I'd be surprised if she is disbarred, but I would expect a suspension.