Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal on Legal Fees for Kari Lake Lawyers

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to reconsider a lower court's order compelling lawyers for former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake to pay $122,000 in legal costs. The fees stem from a 2022 lawsuit that sought to mandate a hand count of all ballots in the midterm elections.

Andrew D. Parker, an attorney who represented Lake in the litigation, had asked the nation's highest court to review the decision regarding the legal costs. The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied this request, effectively upholding the lower court's order.

Lake and state lawmaker Mark Finchem filed the lawsuit, which aimed to ban electronic tabulation devices. A judge initially dismissed the case, ruling that Lake and Finchem lacked legal standing and that the lawsuit was filed too close to the election.

In the 2022 elections, Lake lost the governor's race to Democrat Katie Hobbs, and Finchem was defeated in the secretary of state's race by Democrat Adrian Fontes. Both Republicans had been vocal proponents of claims that the 2020 election was compromised by fraud.

Maricopa County had sought sanctions against Lake, Finchem, and their legal team, asserting that they violated a court rule by presenting unfounded allegations and failing to conduct necessary research before initiating the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge John Tuchi concluded that the lawsuit's claims lacked sufficient factual basis, that attorneys had not performed the required preliminary inquiry before filing, and that the lawyers had acted recklessly by pursuing a court order based on frivolous claims.

The obligation to pay the legal fees falls upon the lawyers who pursued the lawsuit, not on Lake and Finchem themselves.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously rejected appeals concerning both the dismissal of the lawsuit and the awarding of legal fees.

Parker had argued earlier this year to the Supreme Court that sanctions like these could discourage attorneys from bringing aggressive or novel legal claims. Maricopa County's attorneys stated that Lake and Finchem's lawyers had ignored a letter pointing out false allegations in their suit and had incorporated some of those claims into subsequent filings. The county's legal team also contended that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations and falsely claimed Arizona did not use paper ballots and that its electronic voting systems had not undergone expert analysis.