Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter election Integrity Litigation in Michigan (MI)

In King v. Whitmer, Judge Linda V. Parker sanctioned all nine pro-Trump attorneys — including Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood — ordering $175,250 in fee-shifting, twelve hours of mandatory legal education on pleading standards and election law, and referrals to their home bars for possible suspension or disbarment. Parker described the suit as a “historic and profound abuse of the judicial process,” stating that “this case was never about fraud — it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.” The Sixth Circuit upheld sanctions on the merits-falsity ground but reversed the district court’s inherent-authority sanctions, finding that the district court’s stated rationale — that the attorneys tried to use the judicial process “to frame a public ‘narrative’” improperly rested on First Amendment-protected speech. SCOTUS denied certiorari on February 20, 2024.
Michigan AG Nessel, Governor Whitmer, and Secretary Benson jointly filed bar complaints seeking permanent disbarment, with the press release framing the action as targeting attorneys “for pushing election fraud narrative.” Nessel’s complaint to the Texas bar grounded discipline in violations of Rules 3.01, 3.03, and 8.04 arising from filing false factual claims; Nessel’s public statement justified disbarment on the grounds that the attorneys used their licenses to “undermine the faith of the public in the legitimacy of the recent presidential election.” The Sixth Circuit specifically identified the district court’s narrative-framing rationale as an improper basis for sanctions — the same rationale Nessel invoked publicly to justify the bar complaints.