Washington lawyer suspended for "frivolous" 2020 voter fraud claims

In a really under-the-radar case (or maybe just under-the-radar to me) the Washington Supreme Court last week suspended attorney Stephen Pidgeon from the practice of law for one year.

To recap, Stephen Pidgeon was the lawyer who represented the failed 2020 Republican candidate for Governor, Loren Culp. Culp lost … by a lot. He then filed a lawsuit alleging many of the same bogus voter fraud claims Trump and other Republicans made after Trump lost in 2020. I tweeted about the lawsuit when it was filed. It was frivolous from the start because, as I noted in the tweet thread, Culp argued less than 15,000 people may have voted illegally, even though he lost by about 545,000 votes. He bizarrely sought money damages. And he never produced any actual evidence that anyone voted illegally. Which is why he was forced to dismiss the lawsuit under threat of Rule 11 sanctions by the state Attorney General’s office. When it was dismissed, Pidgeon said it had to be dismissed because of “technicalities.” I also tweeted about that development when it happened in 2021.

And now Culp’s lawyer is facing some consequences. The Supreme Court’s order, which is linked in the article above, is brief:

Text of Washington Supreme Court order suspending attorney Stephen Pidgeon for one year.

A couple of notes. First, Pidgeon defaulted, which means he refused to participate in the proceedings. He did not present any defense, nor did he accept any responsibility.

Second, Pidgeon was found to have violated RPC 3.1 and RPC 8.4(d) for “bringing a proceeding and/or [] asserting one or more claims that had no basis in law and fact that was not frivolous.” A little confusing, but it’s basically saying that he brought a frivolous proceeding and/or asserted frivolous claim(s) that lacked a basis in fact and law. Aggravating factors were refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and failing to answer the complaint as required by the rules. A mitigating factor was the absence of prior discipline.

As a result, the hearing officer recommended a one-year suspension, which the Supreme Court accepted.

For his part, Pidgeon played off the whole thing in the Seattle Times article linked above, essentially claiming it didn’t matter because he was already retired anyway, and do you know how much better his life is now that he’s not practicing law?

While this case isn’t earth-shattering news and it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of what many have been indicted for in Georgia, I’m still glad our lawyer disciplinary system takes this issue seriously.