The lawyer who led the effort to de-certify the 2020 presidential election results and replace electors with slates of alternates has lost his license to practice law in California — at least for now.

“In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman’s misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred,” State Bar Judge Yvette Roland wrote in her decision (available in full below).

Roland was appointed to the State Bar Court’s Hearing Department in Los Angeles by then-Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins, a Democrat, nearly a decade ago.

The California State Bar brought 11 counts against Eastman last year in an effort to prevent him from practicing in the state again, according to The Hill.

The judge agreed with the Bar on 10 of those counts, but dismissed the 11th with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be filed again with the same court.

Roland also recommended that Eastman pay a $10,000 “sanction” to the State Bar of California Client Security Fund and ordered that he be “transferred to inactive status,” according to the Hill, effectively stripping him of his law license pending his appeal of the decision.

Eastman’s lawyers have promised such an appeal, which the Hill said would “ultimately end up before the California Supreme Court.”

“Dr. Eastman maintains that his handling of the legal issues he was asked to assess after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent, prior presidential elections, research of constitutional text, and extensive scholarly material,” his legal team said in a statement cited by the Hill.

“The process undertaken by Dr. Eastman in 2020 is the same process taken by lawyers every day and everywhere — indeed, that is the essence of what lawyers do,” the team added.

Eastman also faces eight charges in the Georgia election interference case, alongside former President Donald Trump and others.

Eastman is also licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., the outlet noted.

You can read Roland’s entire 128-page decision below.

Sbc 23 o 30029 Decision Trial by The Western Journal on Scribd

In her ruling, Roland argued that Eastman’s apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that he had acted unethically was key to her decision to recommend he be disbarred.

“This lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public,” she wrote.

However, she did toss out of the accusations against him, saying that “presented no evidence to show that Eastman’s statements contributed to the assault on the Capitol” and therefore dismissing the count of “moral turpitude” arising from that claim.