Donald Trump's lawyers could be in big trouble now that his accountant has pleaded guilty to perjury in his fraud trial.
The Trump Organization's chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg admitted to lying under oath during the former president's fraud trial, and his attorneys could lose their bar licenses for sitting idly while he presented false testimony, reported The Daily Beast.
“The lawyers could face bar discipline if they knew that this testimony was false and did nothing,” said New York Law School professor Rebecca Roiphe. “The state bar attorney grievance committee could initiate its own investigation or the trial judge could make a referral.”
Justice Arthur Engoron, who presided over the trial, considered Weisselberg to be an untrustworthy witness and already warned Trump attorneys Alina Habba, Clifford Robert, and their colleagues to explain anything they knew about his testimony that might have been untrue.
READ MORE: Democrats surrender huge stash of FTX crypto cash
“Submit, as officers of the court, a letter to me detailing anything you know about this that would not violate any of your professional ethics or obligations," Engoron wrote to the attorneys on Feb. 5.
Weisselberg admitted on Monday to lying twice in a deposition and another time in court on Oct. 10 when he denied helping Trump inflate the size of his apartment, and the former president's lawyers had a duty to take “corrective action” if they knew that wasn't true.
“Perjury would qualify as ‘criminal or fraudulent conduct,’” said New York University law school professor Stephen Gillers.
It's not clear that Habba and other attorneys knew Weisselberg was lying, and lawyers often don't know whether a witness is giving false testimony, but prosecutors said internal emails – which had been shared with Trump's attorneys ahead of the fraud trial – proved the accountant had perjured himself.
“They should have known,” said Daniel L. Feldman, who teaches ethics at the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “There are two alternatives: Either they did not engage in due diligence — itself a violation of lawyers’ ethics — or they knew. What are the alternatives? They didn’t read the documents? I mean, come on. They certainly should have known."
