Coordinated Use of Standing Dismissals, Rule 11 Sanctions Threats, and Attorney Discipline to Deter Election Integrity Litigation (MI)

Multiple attorneys who filed election integrity challenges in Michigan faced concurrent financial and professional consequences initiated or recommended by federal and state officials. In August 2021, U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker sanctioned Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Stefanie Lambert, and six other attorneys for the King v. Whitmer challenge, ordering monetary payment of Michigan’s and Detroit’s defense costs, mandatory election-law continuing education, and referring all nine attorneys to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and their respective state bar associations for investigation into potential suspension or disbarment — characterizing the lawsuit as “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process.” The Sixth Circuit upheld the monetary and disciplinary sanctions in June 2023; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in February 2024. Lambert separately faced disqualification from federal litigation, criminal charges in Michigan carrying up to fifteen years’ imprisonment for her alleged role in a post-election voting machine examination, and an independent ethics complaint filed by Lawyers Defending American Democracy with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. Matthew DePerno, who represented William Bailey in Bailey v. Antrim County and received a Clare Locke cease-and-desist letter from Dominion in December 2020, faces a pending AGC misconduct complaint and unresolved felony charges for alleged voting machine tampering; he characterizes both proceedings as “political persecutions.” The AGC complaint against Powell and eight co-counsel was initiated on the request of Governor Whitmer, Secretary of State Benson, and Attorney General Nessel — a fact noted by defense attorney Hagerstrom, who stated: “It seems that (Democrats) want to keep us alive for some reason. Maybe it helps them politically.” Whether this pattern of concurrent sanctions, criminal charges, bar referrals, and civil litigation threats constitutes coordinated deterrence of merits adjudication remains disputed and has not been adjudicated.