On Friday, March 8, 2024, Attorney Julia Haller filed her answer to grievance charges brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Julia Z. Haller,” with case no. 2021-D012, 2021-D013, 2021 – D014, 2021-D015, 2021-D044, and 2021-D046.
Haller has been accused of multiple disciplinary violations related to her involvement in several lawsuits following the 2020 presidential election. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleges that Haller acted improperly by filing lawsuits challenging election results in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona on behalf of former President Donald Trump.
However, in her answer, Haller denies committing any wrongdoing. She claims that she did not have control over the election lawsuits and primarily served as “of counsel,” meaning she assisted in preparing portions of the legal cases but was supervised by more senior attorneys.
Haller argues that including her name under an “of counsel” designation is common practice and does not mean she filed or signed any of the election lawsuits. She denies personally appearing or practicing law in the courts of Michigan or Wisconsin related to the election cases.
The answer also asserts that Haller’s actions were protected free speech under the First Amendment and her participation in the lawsuits was a valid attempt to petition the government for redress.
Regarding the individual election cases, Haller provides detailed responses addressing each specific allegation. She claims the lawsuits were not attempting to overturn election results but rather seeking “relief as is just and proper” through the legal process.
Haller notes that emergency motions and appeals filed went before appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, signaling the cases were worthy of judicial consideration and not frivolous. Additionally, she argues the lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds like lack of standing rather than on the merits.
In her answer, Haller denies all disciplinary rule violations and asserts the grievance improperly characterizes her limited role in the election litigation. She argues the charges constitute viewpoint discrimination and asks the D.C. disciplinary board to dismiss the case.
A hearing on the grievance charges has not yet been scheduled. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Haller’s attorney will now likely engage in further proceedings to address the answer and arguments raised in Haller’s filing.
According to avvo.com, Ms. Haller is a business attorney in Washington, DC. She attended the Seton Hall University School of Law, graduating in 1996. She acquired her law license in DC in 2000.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
