On Friday, March 8, 2024, attorney Lawrence J. Joseph filed his answer to the charges brought against him by the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Joseph is an attorney licensed to practice in DC who faces allegations of professional misconduct related to his involvement in several lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Lawrence J. Joseph,” with case no. 2021-D045.
In Joseph’s filing submitted to the DC Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility, he pleaded not guilty to all charges. He provided detailed responses to each of the 19 paragraphs laid out in the Specification of Charges. Joseph vigorously denied many of the central allegations, including that he knowingly made false statements or referenced documents without basis in fact.
The Specification of Charges stems from Joseph’s limited participation in a December 2020 federal lawsuit filed in Texas called Gohmert v. Pence. In that case, a group of Republican congressmen and purported alternate slates of pro-Trump electors from several swing states asked a judge to declare then-Vice President Mike Pence had the sole authority to determine the outcome of the election during the congressional certification process on January 6, 2021.
While admitting some basic factual details about his bar admission and the filing of the Gohmert case, Joseph’s answer sought to minimize his personal role. He emphasized that he was not admitted to practice in the Texas federal court until after the initial complaint was drafted and filed. Joseph argued many of the statements and exhibits now being called into question predated his involvement in the case.
Joseph also attempted to distinguish the Gohmert lawsuit from other election challenges contesting results within specific states. He said the gravamen of Gohmert concerned the constitutionality of the process governing congressional counting of electoral votes as outlined in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 rather than rival slates of electors per se.
In his responses, Joseph denied personally making any statements found to be materially false or lacking factual basis regarding alternative slates of electors. He rejected that terms like “Arizona Electors” caused any reasonable confusion about their status. Joseph stressed resolution of state election disputes was immaterial to issues raised in Gohmert.
The answer addresses each allegation paragraph by paragraph, admitting some less significant facts while challenging the accuracy or materiality of others. Joseph affirmatively defends that the D.C. conduct rules do not apply to his representation in the Texas, federal appeals court, and Supreme Court proceedings. He also raises constitutional defenses implicating rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection.
According to avvo.com, Mr. Joseph is an appeals attorney in Washington, DC. He attended the Harvard University Law School, graduating in 1991. He acquired his law license in the District of Columbia in 1999.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
