Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
The Hill
Lawyer removed from Dominion case over ‘truly egregious misconduct’
By Lauren Sforza,
7 days ago
FILE – A worker passes a Dominion Voting ballot scanner while setting up a polling location at an elementary school in Gwinnett County, Ga., outside of Atlanta, on Jan. 4, 2021. The judge presiding over a voting machine company’s closely watched defamation lawsuit against Fox News for airing bogus allegations of fraud in the 2020 election indicated Tuesday that he would not allow jurors to hear testimony about specific threats directed at the company. (AP Photo/Ben Gray, File)
Stefanie Lambert, an attorney charged with illegally accessing Michigan voting machines after the 2020 election, has been removed from a defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems.
Lambert represented former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in the case, in which Dominion alleged that Byrne made false statements about the company’s role in the 2020 election. U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya disqualified Lambert from representing Byrne in an order Tuesday after determining that she publicly leaked internal records from Dominion in violation of a court order.
Dominion filed a motion earlier this year asking for Lambert to be removed from the lawsuit, alleging she violated a protective order placed on the documents in the case. The judge held a hearing on the matter in March.
Upadhyaya noted disqualification from the case “is extraordinary and rarely granted outside of cases involving conflicts of interest.” However, the judge said Lambert’s “truly egregious misconduct” has warranted a disqualification in the case.
“Nevertheless, the record clearly shows that Lambert deliberately violated multiple court rules and orders and continues to do so despite having had ample warning of the consequences and assuring the Court she would comply,” the order memorandum states.
“Lambert’s repeated misconduct raises the serious concern that she became involved in this litigation for the sheer purpose of gaining access to and publicly sharing Dominion’s protected discovery,” the order continues.
The order noted Byrne also violated the protective order, but the “full scope of Byrne’s actions is not yet known.” Upadhyaya said in the order their actions have “fueled theories of widescale election fraud and crime.”
The order said Lambert disseminated Dominion’s discovery materials in two ways.
She included the documents in a public filing in her Michigan criminal case, where she was charged on four felony counts related to the 2020 election, according to the order. She also shared some public documents with a sheriff in Michigan, who went on to share and discuss the documents, the order said.
The order noted that before her hearing in March on the issue, she acknowledged on the social platform X that she “gave the evidence to law enforcement,” adding it “contained evidence of numerous crimes.”
The order said Lambert continued to discuss and disseminate the documents even following the March hearing. In another hearing on the issue in May, the order said Lambert “did not dispute either the underlying conduct or the authenticity of any document Dominion cited in its presentation.”
The judge said in the order there “is no doubt” Lambert’s actions would continue to interfere with the case if she was allowed to remain as counsel.
“This Court cannot allow such intentional, dangerous, and relentless misconduct to continue. Lambert is immediately disqualified from serving as counsel in this case,” the order concluded.
A Dominion spokesperson said in a statement to The Hill that they appreciated the order.
“We appreciate the court’s careful decision to disqualify Patrick Byrne’s counsel. Our case against Byrne is moving forward and we will hold him accountable for continuing to spread lies about Dominion and our employees,” the spokesperson said.
Lambert told The Hill in a text message “we are filing an appeal.”
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Comments / 0