A New York court of appeals has disbarred Kenneth Chesebro, a lawyer noted for drafting the “coup memos” – documents presenting legal strategies for President Donald Trump to reverse the 2020 presidential election outcomes in a “constitutionally defensible manner.”

On Thursday, the Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York made a ruling based on requests from both Chesebro and the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) of the Empire State.

The panel considered those requests in light of recommendations provided by a referee, essentially ruling on appeals to a judgment at a lower, administrative-like level. In the Empire State, a referee issues a report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as recommendations for appropriate discipline in the event of a violation.

In a frequently blistering per curiam opinion, the appellate body criticized the pro-Trump attorney and rejected the more lenient recommendation issued by the referee in lieu of disbarment.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The basis of the bar complaint against Chesebro was technically his guilty plea in the beleaguered racketeering (RICO) and election interference case led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Chesebro was charged with a total of seven counts in the wide-ranging indictment. Those charges included one alleged RICO violation, one count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, two counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, two counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writing, and one count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents.

In October 2023, days before his case was slated to go to trial, Chesebro pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents. In exchange, Willis dropped the other counts.

After that, the AGC moved to have Chesebro’s name removed from the attorney rolls in New York due to his felony conviction, or issue other discipline based on the idea that he committed a “serious crime.”

Chesebro was quickly suspended over the serious crime allegation, and the referee soon began the more intensive process.

By and large, the appeals court endorsed the referee’s findings. In doing so, the court delved deep into the facts undergirding Chesebro’s criminal conviction in the Peach State.

The ruling takes stock of that pro-Trump work, at length:

[Chesebro] provided Trump campaign officials with a packet of documents, which included detailed instructions for how the Georgia electors may cast votes, as well as a proposed “Certificate of Votes of the 2020 Electors from Georgia.” The Certificate contained language to the effect that the signatories were duly elected and qualified electors for President and Vice President of the United States from the State of Georgia. While the Referee noted that [Chesebro] suggested a change to the Certificate, which had been prompted by concerns raised by Pennsylvania delegates, and sought to convey that the votes submitted were contingent on the outcome of litigation, [Chesebro’s] suggestions were not implemented, as the putative Georgia electors met on December 14, 2020, voted and executed a Certificate containing respondent’s original language.

The court faults Chesebro for various aspects of this legal work.

First, the court took him to task for the “collaborative nature” of the pro-coup efforts.

“[D]espite efforts to combat the description that respondent was the ‘architect’ of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the testimony and documentary evidence produced at the hearing fully support such a claim, inasmuch as respondent’s legal analysis and implementation guidelines fueled the effort,” the opinion reads.

The court reiterated that even beyond those ideas, there were actual documents prepared by the lawyer to try and undo the election.

“Nonetheless, [Chesebro] provided the Trump campaign with the legal framework and documents for it to challenge election results, including the very language utilized in the Certificates that formed the basis of his criminal plea in Georgia,” the opinion continues.

Chesebro, in his defense, argued the ideas were just “a general framework” and the documents he provided were just “rough materials.”

The referee directly disputed those characterizations.

The appeals court, for their part, did not directly address those characterizations – instead focusing on what Chesebro said he told the Trump campaign after they received those general and rough documents.

To hear Chesebro tell it, he made suggestions to change the language but was ignored and only much later learned the documents he prepared had been executed in the exact form they were received.

Here, the court is withering:

“Now, [Chesebro] takes the position that these changes were not merely recommended, but rather required in order to lawfully align with his legal opinion,” the opinion goes on. “Surely, an attorney with [Chesebro’s] background – not only in constitutional and election law, but also in complex representation involving multiple legal teams–would be aware of his obligations to appropriately address a significant conditioning factor of his opinion and insist that the campaign’s state-specific legal team address the matter, as opposed to just providing suggested language that the campaign should feel free to adopt or disregard.”

Later, the court takes a bird’s-eye view of the matter.

A section on the appropriate punishment reads, again at length:

[Chesebro’s] conduct brings into question his integrity and fitness to continue engaging in the practice of law in New York. On a larger scale, however, respondent’s conduct, which is further detailed through his extensive testimony and the documentary evidence produced at the hearing, “strike[s] at the heart of the administration of justice” and undercuts the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold. Moreover, his cavalier attitude regarding his actions, particularly in the face of his extensive background in the areas of constitutional and election law, largely aggravates his conduct, notwithstanding his lack of disciplinary history.

While the referee suggested merely keeping Chesebro suspended pending the resolution of an election-related criminal case in Wisconsin, the court had apparently seen and heard enough.

“Given the testimony and evidence produced at the hearing, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred based on his conviction of a serious crime,” the opinion concludes.