Trump's Lawyers Demonstrate The Vacuity Of Rules Of Professional Conduct

Trump's lawyers filed just over 60 lawsuits aimed at overturning the election results.  None have succeeded, all have been dismissed at the initial pleading stage.  In just one of those cases has a judge gone so far as to consider sanctions under Rule 11.Despite repeating the same factual and legal claims, failure in one forum seems to have had no effect on filings in another forum so that, with one exception, judges are treating these suits as run of the mill litigation failures.  That should be troubling.  After all, the same set of disproven or entirely unsupported factual claims appear over and over.  How could it be that repeating rejected factual claims is not a violation of Rule 11?  The Rule requires reasonable investigation before filing and reasonable belief in the factual and legal allegations.  Yet lawyer after lawyer signed off on claims of vote fraud that have no basis in reality.  Is there some special provision known only to judges that says that right-wing political fantasy is a proper basis for filing suit?  Or is it some notion that the dismissal is all that really matters, doing anything other than dismiss will make martyrs of the lawyers?  They need no help on that score - they insult the court on dismissal claiming incompetence and political influence tainted the judges.  If 60 defeats is not discouraging, why overlook the waste of resources and the violation of duties? 

It is one thing for state court judges to be leery of imposing sanctions.  As they stand for election or confirmation, they might have to face some consequence for acting on the Rules.  But federal judges face no consequences, real or imagined.  There is no risk for them if they maintain standards and enforce rules, including Rule 11. 

The Rules of Professional Conduct make clear that 'because the client wants to' is not a basis for a lawsuit, and does not justify filing. Commercial litigation with such a record would, I think, result in sanctions against the lawyers.  All that talk about civility and standards, of a noble profession, look ridiculous today.  Why bother with the oath when it, at least in this context, is a sham?