Rudy Giuliani Is Disbarred in New York

NEW YORK (AP) — Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, federal prosecutor and legal adviser to Donald Trump, was disbarred in New York on Tuesday after a court found he repeatedly made false statements about Trump’s 2020 election loss.

The Manhattan appeals court ruled Giuliani, who had his New York law license suspended in 2021 for making false statements around the election, is no longer allowed to practice law in the state, effective immediately.

“The seriousness of respondent’s misconduct cannot be overstated,” the decision reads. Giuliani “flagrantly misused” his position and “baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country’s electoral process.”

“In so doing, respondent not only deliberately violated some of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession, but he also actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 Presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant,” the court wrote.

Guiliani said Tuesday that he wasn’t surprised to lose his law license in his hometown, claiming in a post on the social media platform X that the case was “based on an activist complaint, replete with false arguments.”

The former mob prosecutor was admitted to the New York bar in 1969, but before pleading Trump’s case in November 2020, Giuliani had not appeared in court as an attorney since 1992, according to court records.

A Giuliani spokesperson, Ted Goodman, said the man once dubbed “America’s mayor” will appeal the “objectively flawed” decision by the midlevel state court. He also called on others in the legal community to speak out against the “politically and ideologically corrupted decision.”

Giuliani’s attorney Arthur Aidala was more measured, saying his legal team was “obviously disappointed” but not surprised by the decision. He said they “put up a valiant effort” to prevent the disbarment but “saw the writing on the wall.”

Giuliani argued in hearings held last October that he believed the claims he was making on behalf of the Trump campaign were true, but the court, in its decision, said it wasn’t convinced.

“Contrary to respondent’s allegations, there is nothing on the record before us that would permit the conclusion that respondent lacked knowledge of the falsehood of the numerous statements that he made, and that he had a good faith basis to believe them to be true,” the decision reads.