A reader asked whether Justice Department attorneys could be disbarred for bringing allegedly frivolous lawsuits against states and election boards in an attempt to interfere with an election. The short answer is that attorney discipline is possible, but disbarment would be neither automatic nor quick.

Lawyers have already faced bar discipline over their support for President Donald Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden. Those proceedings are still unfolding, including John Eastman’s pending Supreme Court petition challenging his California disbarment.

The timing matters because professional discipline cases can take years to resolve. Even when judges impose sanctions, separate state bars and courts generally decide whether attorneys should lose their law licenses or face lesser penalties.

The current dispute centers on Justice Department lawyers who sued to intervene in Alaska’s U.S. Senate contest shortly before Election Day. Their Oct. 22 complaint raised concerns that Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan could lose a key race to Democratic challenger Mary Peltola.

Daniel J. Sullivan was also on the ballot, and the Justice Department accused him of running “with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him.” The lawsuit seeks to prevent Alaska from certifying the results if the Republican incumbent loses.

Election law experts across the political spectrum have sharply criticized the government’s legal case. An amicus brief from University of California at Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen compiled assessments calling the argument “completely meritless,” “scraping the bottom of the barrel” and a “desperation play” with “zero basis in the law.”

Other scholars quoted in Hasen’s brief called the case “one of the weakest lawsuits I’ve ever seen” and “unconstitutional and unprecedented.” One assessment described it as “uniquely embarrassing, likely filed only because Trump himself insisted on it.”

Hasen, who directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project, argued that the federal government’s “error-filled complaint seeks to derail Alaska’s normal and constitutionally protected processes for certifying election results.” He also criticized its reliance on language about election integrity in the preamble to a federal voter registration law.

A group led by the League of Women Voters asked Obama appointee Sharon Gleason, the judge overseeing the case, to dismiss what it called the “frivolous, election-eve lawsuit.” The coalition also urged Gleason to consider sanctions against the government lawyers who signed the complaint.

The coalition specifically cited Rule 11, the federal civil procedure rule governing frivolous and dishonest court filings and sanctions for bringing them. It said the court should consider “Rule 11 sanctions against the attorneys who signed the Complaint in the name of the United States Department of Justice.”

The complaint was signed by Stanley Woodward, a senior government lawyer during Trump’s second term, and prosecutor E. Bryan Wilson, who is based in Alaska. Woodward has pressed Trump’s priorities in court and previously represented several figures aligned with Trump while working in private practice.

Woodward and Wilson filed an amended complaint on Thursday citing New York Times reporting that the Peltola campaign worked with people trying to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan. Their filing did not quote the Times’ caveat that such ballot tactics are common, generally considered legal and have been used by both parties in Alaska.

Whatever political impact that reporting carries, it does not retroactively strengthen the lawsuit’s legal merits or make its original filing more ethical. Gleason has not yet ruled on the case, potential sanctions or what might happen during any appeal.

Even sanctions would not necessarily place the attorneys’ law licenses in immediate danger. Disbarment is the most severe form of attorney discipline, while other possible consequences include a reprimand or suspension.

Woodward also faces a separate bar complaint filed earlier this year by the watchdog group Campaign for Accountability in the District of Columbia. The group requested an investigation into potential ethics violations involving his participation in an anti weaponization fund that it said could compensate Jan. 6 defendants and Trump associates he previously represented.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department was not proceeding with that fund, though pardoned Jan. 6 defendants, including Woodward’s former clients, continue pursuing compensation claims. Whether Woodward, Wilson or any other attorney ultimately faces professional discipline could remain unresolved for years.