The “Democratic-Integrity” Disbarment Standard
Matter of Chesebro (2025 NY Slip Op 03855)

Introduction

Matter of Chesebro is the first reported New York disciplinary opinion to identify an attorney’s attempt to subvert a certified presidential election as conduct that “strikes at the heart of the administration of justice,” independently justifying disbarment. Kenneth John Chesebro – a constitutional litigator with admissions in eight jurisdictions – pleaded guilty in Georgia to conspiracy to file false documents. The Attorney Grievance Committee (“AGC”) for New York’s Third Judicial Department sought either automatic disbarment (on parity with a New York felony) or, alternatively, discipline for a “serious crime.” After a referee’s hearing focused on aggravation and mitigation, the Appellate Division rejected the referee’s recommendation of an open-ended suspension and instead imposed immediate disbarment.

The decision forges a new disciplinary benchmark – the “Democratic-Integrity Aggravator” – holding that a lawyer’s participation in a scheme aimed at overturning certified election results is an especially aggravating factor warranting ultimate expulsion from the bar, even where (a) the out-of-state felony would not constitute a New York felony, and (b) the underlying offense lacks an element of moral turpitude.

Summary of the Judgment

• The court confirmed that Chesebro’s Georgia conviction is a “serious crime” under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d).
• It rejected the referee’s proposal to await the outcome of Wisconsin charges, finding the existing record sufficient for final sanction.
• Key aggravators: senior experience, central role as “architect,” failure to heed reporting duties, lack of genuine remorse.
• Mitigators (lack of prior discipline, partial candor at hearing) were held insufficient.
• The court ordered immediate disbarment and removal from the roll of attorneys, with the usual injunctions on practice and the compliance affidavit requirement.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Matter of Shore, 163 AD3d 150 (2d Dept 2018) – collaborative misconduct as an aggravator.
Matter of Scott, 54 AD3d 1145 (3d Dept 2008) – felony questioning fitness to practice.
Matter of Van Riper, 290 AD2d 572 (3d Dept 2002) – integrity/fitness test.
Matter of Reich, 32 AD3d 1106 (3d Dept 2006) – conduct that “strikes at the heart of the administration of justice.”
Matter of Giuliani, 230 AD3d 101 (1st Dept 2024) – election-related misconduct as aggravator.
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline, Standards 9.22-9.32 – aggravating/mitigating factors.

The court intertwined these authorities to craft a new synthesis: when attorney conduct simultaneously (a) violates criminal provisions and (b) undermines democratic process, the Reich language – “strikes at the heart of the administration of justice” – is triggered, elevating sanction gravity. Giuliani provided the immediate doctrinal stepping-stone by recognizing election-subversion as a uniquely aggravating species of misconduct. Shore informed the “collaborative nature” evaluation, while Scott and Van Riper supplied the fitness doctrine. The ABA Standards offered a structured lens for weighting experience, remorse, and public harm.

2. Legal Reasoning

• Serious-Crime Classification: Under § 90(4)(d), a felony from another state constitutes a “serious crime” if punishable by more than one year. The Georgia conspiracy conviction satisfied that threshold.
• No Moral-Turpitude Escape Hatch: The court held that absence of an explicit turpitude element is irrelevant where the conduct impugns core democratic values.
• Aggravation Matrix: Experience (ABA 9.22(i)), role as architect (9.22), public harm to democratic institutions (9.22(k)), and deliberate reporting failures (9.22) outweighed mitigators.
• Immediate Disbarment vs. Continued Suspension: The court distinguished the Georgia plea as a finalized conviction, making further delay untenable and rejecting the referee’s “wait for Wisconsin” stance.
• Fitness Determination: Leveraging Scott/Van Riper, the court concluded Chesebro’s integrity was irreparably compromised – a standard met when conduct strikes the rule-of-law foundation.

3. Impact

a. Attorney Discipline Nationwide: While New York’s decision binds only its bar, the articulation of a “Democratic-Integrity” aggravator will likely influence reciprocal discipline proceedings elsewhere and guide AGCs confronting post-2020 election misconduct.

b. Heightened Reporting Vigilance: The opinion underscores automatic, personal reporting duties for out-of-state convictions and suspensions. “Public notoriety” is not an excuse.

c. Election-Law Practice: Lawyers advising political campaigns must now internalize that drafting or facilitating alternate-elector schemes can yield career-ending consequences, independent of the ultimate success of litigation theories.

d. Precedent for Future Democratic-Process Cases: Courts can cite Chesebro as authority that attempts to delegitimize certified results are per se assaults on justice, meriting the bar’s strongest sanction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Serious Crime (Judiciary Law § 90[4][d]) – any felony or equivalent from another jurisdiction, or certain misdemeanors, triggering formal discipline in New York.
• Disbarment vs. Automatic Disbarment – “Automatic” follows a New York felony; “disbarment” here is discretionary but grounded in the seriousness of an out-of-state felony.
• Referee – an appointed attorney/judge who conducts fact-finding hearings and recommends sanctions; the Appellate Division reviews de novo.
• Aggravating/Mitigating Factors – criteria (ABA Std. 9.22 & 9.32) enhancing or reducing penalty severity.
• Failure to Report – attorneys must notify New York’s AGC within 30 days of any conviction or out-of-state discipline; noncompliance itself aggravates sanction.

Conclusion

Matter of Chesebro erects a potent new disciplinary landmark: when an attorney’s criminal conduct is aimed at subverting electoral integrity, the offense is so antithetical to the rule of law that disbarment is virtually inevitable, regardless of technical elements like moral turpitude. The decision weaves existing doctrines into a cohesive “Democratic-Integrity” standard that will resonate well beyond New York, serving as a deterrent to lawyers who contemplate weaponizing legal expertise against democratic norms. For the bar, the message is unequivocal: professional privilege ends where the constitutional order begins.