Patrick Byrne (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite),Stefanie Lambert (ConservativeDaily podcast/screengrab)
After Dominion Voting Systems filed a motion to disqualify lawyer Stefanie Lambert from representing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in the defamation lawsuit, citing a violation of a protective order to leak discovery publicly, a hearing is set for Monday in a D.C. federal courtroom.KrakenLambert, under indictment in Michigan and hit with a bench warrant, only recently entered the case as Byrne’s lawyer, but almost as soon as that happened Byrne’s lawyer Robert Driscoll withdrew from the case.
As Law&Crime
reported days ago, Driscoll informed Dominion about a discovery “breach” also by email on March 12 claiming that Lambert shared discovery with non-party Barry County Sheriff and filed discovery material in public as part of her bid to combat her criminal case for alleged conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to and willfully damage voting machines. Dar Leaf Dominion’s attorneys told U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that Lambert herself confirmed both the discovery breach and that Byrne “directed” she violate the protective order. The motion to disqualify, which seeks sanctions and accuses Lambert of violating D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), shed more light on her apparent justification for the leak: reporting purported evidence in discovery of 2020 election “criminal activity” to law enforcement.
Dominion said the documents Lambert released showed no such thing. Rather, it revealed xenophobia on the part of Lambert and Byrne, the plaintiff asserted.
“When confronted with her breach, Lambert did not claim confusion about what was or was not permitted under this Court’s Order. Rather, she claimed her contempt of court was required given that—in her warped view—the documents show evidence of ‘criminal activity,'” Dominion’s motion. “Never mind that courts have repeatedly, emphatically rejected the notion that Dominion did anything other than facilitate a secure election in 2020. Or that the documents Lambert disclosed show absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any ‘criminal activity.’ (Best Dominion can tell, Byrne and Lambert’s xenophobic conclusion is that any email from non-US-based Dominion personnel is conclusive evidence of criminal activity.)”
Writing that Lambert’s “actions should shock the conscience” as a “flagrant disregard for judicial process and the Professional Rules of Conduct,” Dominion said it was left with no choice but to seek her ouster under “these incredible circumstances.”
More Law&Crime coverage: Ex-Overstock CEO who had ‘trysts’ with Maria Butina and attended heated Trump Oval Office meeting in 2020 now faces Hunter Biden defamation suit
“Dominion further requests the Court’s guidance on a process for briefing what sanctions should befall Lambert, Byrne, and any other lawyers or individuals whose conduct, following a full accounting of those acts, warrants it. Dominion does not take lightly a request to disqualify counsel,” the motion continued, emphasizing that “she [Lambert] did not feign ignorance of her duties under the Court’s order.”
The voting machine company stated that the discovery breach had quick consequences for Dominion employees.
The filing mentioned that Lambert’s actions resulted in new threats to Dominion employees, such as a voicemail accusing Dominion of tampering with the elections and calling for harm to the employees, as well as a post calling for the arrest and hanging of Dominion’s CEO John Poulos.
When Dominion brought up the possibility of sanctions, it pointed out that Lambert is familiar with the process, as she was previously sanctioned for her involvement in the Michigan “Kraken” lawsuit before an appellate court overturned the decision.
The motion stated that Lambert does not contest the requirements outlined in the Protective Order, which anticipates sanctions if breached. Instead, she seems to believe she has the sole authority to decide whether to comply. As a licensed attorney, Lambert is well aware that court orders are mandatory, as indicated by disciplinary referrals, bench warrant, and sanctions against her by various courts. The motion argued that her violation warrants disqualification.
The plaintiff’s attorneys mentioned that further investigation is necessary before seeking sanctions against Byrne, but they reserved the right to make that request later for the defendant and any other individuals who may have violated the protective order.
Read the Dominion motion
After a discovery “breach,” Dominion Voting Systems has moved to disqualify a “Kraken” lawyer from representing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne. here.