From the report and recommendation:

Having reviewed the record in this matter, including the parties’ arguments before the Board, we reject Respondentís procedural arguments and dispositive motions. On the merits, we conclude that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent attempted to make intentionally false statements when he continued to advocate that the Justice Department issue a letter containing falsehoods. Although the hearing witnesses agreed that Respondent had sincere personal concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election, they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states. Respondent knew that because Messrs. Rosen and Donoghue told him so. Thus, Respondentís conduct constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation. We agree with the Hearing Committee that Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove that Respondent attempted to seriously interfere with the administration of justice, although for different reasons.

A majority of the Board recommends that Respondent be disbarred. [Footnote: Two Board Members recommend that Respondent be suspended for three years and be required to prove his fitness to practice prior to reinstatement.] We recognize that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases. But that is not surprising given the underlying facts. In making this recommendation, we are mindful of the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and deter the respondent and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. Lawyers must observe the highest standard of professional conduct. At a minimum, they must be honest. While dishonesty is always intolerable, the facts here are significantly aggravating to warrant disbarment: Respondent was prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie about the status of its investigation of an important national issue (the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election). Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so. Respondent persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.