In late 2020, Webster took part in Paxton's effort to try to overturn the results of the November 2020 presidential election, in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump. [2] [5] In December 2020, Webster filed a case on behalf of the state ( Texas v. Pennsylvania ) that sought to overturn the election results in four states won by Biden, thus overturning Trump's election loss and keeping him in power. [5] [2] Texas's complaint contained many debunked claims of voter fraud that had already been rejected by many other courts. [2]
Proceedings against Webster for professional misconduct
The State Bar of Texas subsequently investigated and brought a disciplinary case against Webster. [5] [6] In January 2022, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline held a hearing, at which Webster refused to appear. [6] In May 2022, following its investigation, the Commission determined that Webster violated the state's Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys "by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation"; [5] and identified six key misrepresentations that Webster had made in the Texas v. Pennsylvania filings before the Supreme Court. [6]
After the Commission made adverse findings against him, Webster chose to file an appeal in court rather than accept the sanctions proposed by the panel. [6] In September 2022, Judge John Youngblood, a Milam County judge assigned to the case in Williamson County court, dismissed the case against Webster, ruling that "the separation-of-powers doctrine deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction" because the State Bar (part of the judicial branch) would sanction the attorney general's office (part of the executive branch). [5] [7] Youngblood's ruling was reversed by the Texas Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso, which ruled in June 2022 that lawyers for the state are not immune from the rules of professional conduct governing lawyers. [6] The court wrote that "Immunizing Webster from professional-misconduct proceedings in no way furthers the rationale for sovereign immunity" and that Webster's argument, if accepted, would make the public "powerless to deter misconduct." [6]
