Possibly, especially if action is taken by those in a state to have them brought up before the state’s grievance committees.
Washington Times published an article October 18, 2017 titled “Push is on to disbar James Comey after Clinton scandal” in which Ty Clevenger filed a grievance in New York, where Mr. Comey was a former U.S. attorney and is licensed to practice law. His standing was that Comey had lied before congress on what happened and the results during Hillary Clinton’s questioning.
“Insofar as Mr. Comey gave materially false testimony to Congress, it appears that he violated Rules 1.0(w), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct,” Mr. Clevenger wrote.
He also asked to renew grievances in New York against former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, saying Mr. Comey’s claim that she tried to pressure him to downplay the Clinton probe should subject her to scrutiny.
WT also noted in the article that Clevenger was also challenging the bar membership of Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers. He had won a court order in Maryland demanding the grievance committee there conduct an investigation into David E. Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson over allegations they destroyed evidence in the email probe.
Certainly after the FISA memo has been released, there is reason to go after any of those involved to make sure they no longer retain their attorney’s license at the very least. Criminal charges and convictions would obviously also create the same result. However, can we really know how long or even if these culprits will see their day in court much less time behind bars?
At the very least the most obvious should have their licenses considered and revoked if they can be shown to have given false testimony under oath. Why Loretta Lynch still is allowed to practice after the debacle on the tarmac and her actions when called before congress is a concern if in fact she still has her license.
The “innocent until proven guilty” should always apply. However in such cases where attorneys who are in high profile government positions and bloody well know the law, lie under oath in Congress and where there is clear video and proof that they have done so, shouldn’t these people be a step well past “innocent until proven guilty?” At least enough to have their license revoked for which they can reapply at a later date or have confirmation they are no longer a threat to lawful legal decision making?
Public officials have been disbarred in the past after being caught being dishonest. Richard Nixon lost his New York attorney’s license after the Watergate scandal. Clinton also lost his license. I doubt that made a bit of difference to either man in the long run.
I know it seems disbarring an attorney is so much of nothing, especially given all of the things happening over the last few years. Still, it is one single step that can prevent said members from practicing and continuing to spread their “convoluted ideas of law” while representing or advising some client who has broken civil or criminal laws themselves.