Judge Craig Karsnitz SUSPENDS Trump’s lawyer Lin Wood's right to practice in Delaware (i.e. pro hac vice), calling his conduct in the post-election period "a toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication, and surprising incompetence."
A Delaware superior court judge has reportedly suspended Lin Wood's ability to practice law in the state.
Wood is known for trying to overturn the 2020 election on behalf of President Donald Trump.
In a ruling issued on Tuesday, Judge Craig Karsnitz explained why he was revoking Wood's right to practice.
"During the course of this, litigation has been filed around the country challenging the Presidential election," Karsnitz wrote. "I raised concerns I had after reviewing written decisions from Georgia and Wisconsin. Specifically, in Georgia, a lawsuit filed by Mr. Wood resulted in a determination that the suit was without basis in law of fact. The initial pleadings in the Wisconsin case were riddled with errors."
Karsnitz noted that it was not his role to determine if Wood had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
"What I am always required to do is ensure that those practicing before me are of sufficient character, and conduct themselves with sufficient civility and truthfulness," the judge continued. "The conduct of Mr. Wood, albeit not in my jurisdiction, exhibited a toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence."
"What has been shown in Court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood's permission to practice before this Court," Karsnitz concluded.
Wood is known for trying to overturn the 2020 election on behalf of President Donald Trump.
In a ruling issued on Tuesday, Judge Craig Karsnitz explained why he was revoking Wood's right to practice.
"During the course of this, litigation has been filed around the country challenging the Presidential election," Karsnitz wrote. "I raised concerns I had after reviewing written decisions from Georgia and Wisconsin. Specifically, in Georgia, a lawsuit filed by Mr. Wood resulted in a determination that the suit was without basis in law of fact. The initial pleadings in the Wisconsin case were riddled with errors."
Karsnitz noted that it was not his role to determine if Wood had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
"What I am always required to do is ensure that those practicing before me are of sufficient character, and conduct themselves with sufficient civility and truthfulness," the judge continued. "The conduct of Mr. Wood, albeit not in my jurisdiction, exhibited a toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence."
"What has been shown in Court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood's permission to practice before this Court," Karsnitz concluded.