Ken Chesebro, a lawyer with ties to former President Donald Trump, has recently faced significant professional setbacks following a felony conviction for his involvement in the alleged “fake electors” plot. Chesebro’s law license has been suspended in New York due to his conviction of a “serious crime.” This latest development follows a series of repercussions stemming from his actions connected to efforts aimed at overturning the 2020 presidential election results.
Chesebro, known for his role in developing a legal memo proposing a strategy for Vice President Mike Pence to reject certified electoral votes from key battleground states, has faced mounting scrutiny. His memo outlined how Pence could disregard votes from certain states and instead recognize alternative “Trump-Pence electors.” This proposal, outlined in detail within the January 6 Committee’s final report, laid the groundwork for Chesebro’s involvement in the creation and potential implementation of the fake elector scheme, which targeted states like Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin.
After over a year of investigations and mounting legal pressure, Chesebro pleaded guilty in Georgia in October 2023 to conspiracy to commit the filing of false documents. In this plea agreement, he accepted a sentence recommendation of five years’ probation, 100 hours of community service, and payment of $5,000 in restitution. His apology to the people of Georgia and Fulton County acknowledged his involvement in Count 15 of the indictment, specifically related to his role in the broader effort to challenge the election results.
Chesebro’s plea agreement in Georgia came with conditions that required him to cooperate with further investigations. His involvement in the plot to challenge election results did not just place him in legal jeopardy but also raised questions about his professional standing. Multiple states have since taken steps to suspend or restrict his ability to practice law. In Massachusetts, he received a temporary suspension, and he is no longer eligible to practice law in California and Florida. Additionally, he voluntarily went inactive in Illinois.
In New York, the Attorney Grievance Committee moved to disbar Chesebro due to his felony conviction, arguing that his criminal actions constituted grounds for automatic disbarment. However, the court determined that an interim suspension was a more appropriate measure at this stage. The ruling hinged on a legal technicality, as the court noted that the crime for which Chesebro was convicted in Georgia was not directly equivalent to a felony under New York law. Nevertheless, the court recognized the crime as serious enough to warrant an immediate suspension of his law license in the state.
While his plea deal in Georgia potentially opens the door for his conviction to be expunged, should he fulfill the probation requirements as a first-time offender, the New York court decided not to factor this possibility into its ruling. According to the court’s reasoning, the plea agreement in Georgia and the probationary terms Chesebro must meet do not negate the existence of the conviction itself. Additionally, the court expressed concern over the possibility that Chesebro could breach the terms of his probation, which could lead to additional criminal penalties and affect the status of his conviction.
This interim suspension, which effectively bars him from practicing law in any form within New York, reflects the court’s stance that Chesebro’s actions posed a serious ethical breach. His conviction and subsequent penalties represent a broader consequence faced by those who participated in efforts to subvert the electoral process. Chesebro’s case has been particularly notable due to his role in drafting legal documents that laid the framework for the “fake electors” scheme. This scheme aimed to present an alternative slate of electors favoring Trump-Pence in several states where the official results declared Joe Biden the winner.
The court’s decision to suspend Chesebro on an interim basis underscores its view that legal professionals must be held accountable for crimes that undermine public trust, especially in matters involving democratic processes. The court emphasized that, regardless of any potential exoneration under Georgia law, Chesebro’s actions and subsequent conviction bear serious implications. In its ruling, the court directed Chesebro to cease any practice of law in New York, marking a firm stance on the ethical responsibilities expected of attorneys within its jurisdiction.
Chesebro’s legal challenges have had significant repercussions, not only for him personally but also for the wider conversation about the rule of law and accountability. The implications of his suspension echo the broader legal and ethical concerns arising from the January 6 events, as the case sheds light on the roles of legal advisors in political actions aimed at challenging established democratic processes. While the legal ramifications of his conviction continue to unfold, Chesebro’s suspension adds to a growing list of attorneys and advisors facing consequences for their involvement in efforts to dispute the 2020 election outcome.
This development reflects the increasing accountability measures directed toward legal professionals involved in the events surrounding January 6, 2021. As the court system navigates these unique and complex cases, the decisions regarding professionals like Chesebro will likely set precedents that reinforce ethical standards within the legal profession, particularly in cases where actions intersect with political and democratic systems.
