Supreme Court Upholds Larry Klayman's Disbarment
The high court left in place the disbarment of Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, a ruling that disrupts several of his pending cases.
Updated on Nov. 9, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should lawyers who repeatedly violate ethics rules be barred from practicing law?
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of lawyer Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch. The decision leaves in place a Florida Supreme Court ruling that also imposed a two-year suspension on his law license.
Why it matters
The Florida Supreme Court found Klayman broke ethical rules by representing a client for whom he developed romantic feelings, citing a pattern of misconduct and bad-faith obstruction of disciplinary proceedings. The ruling is expected to disrupt a number of his current cases, including a defamation suit he is handling for Laura Loomer against HBO and Bill Maher.
The Florida Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension on Klayman's law license, after prior 18-month suspensions from the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. District Court. The extraction does not indicate how the disbarment will be applied to his pending matters.
The players
Larry Klayman
Klayman is a lawyer and the founder of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which he launched in 1994.
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch is a conservative nonprofit government watchdog organization founded by Larry Klayman in 1994.
The details
Klayman appealed the Florida Supreme Court's suspension, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to disturb the disbarment. Klayman is also barred for life from appearing before judges in California and New York.
Timeline
Last year (2025): The Florida Supreme Court imposed a two-year law license suspension.
November 2025: The Florida Supreme Court suspended Klayman.
September 2026: Klayman filed a $150 million suit against Hasan Piker.
Monday, November 9, 2026: The Supreme Court upheld Klayman's disbarment.
Legal Context
The disbarment follows earlier 18-month suspensions Klayman received from both the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. District Court. Together these actions mark a sustained pattern of professional discipline across multiple jurisdictions.
Clients and opposing parties in Klayman's pending matters will need to see how the disbarment affects representation in those cases. The extraction does not describe any direct impact beyond those proceedings.
The takeaway
A Supreme Court decision that leaves a disbarment in place can reshape active litigation, and affected parties may need to reassess representation quickly.
Further reading
Explore more United States Law coverage for context on attorney discipline and court rulings.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Alternet.
Live Poll
Should lawyers who repeatedly violate ethics rules be barred from practicing law?
