Two attorneys, Washington, D.C., employment lawyer Kurt Olsen and Scottsdale divorce attorney Bryan Blehm both worked on the Lake election challenge trial—have been found in violation of their ethical obligations during the proceedings.

The lawyers have been accused of submitting false documentation to the Arizona Supreme Court.

In proceedings, they reportedly told the court that it was “an undisputed fact” that more than 35,000 illegal ballots were inserted into the count in the 2022 general election in Maricopa County—the claim was unevidenced and both the state and the county have repeatedly denied that it happened.

Both attorneys have been ordered to pay $2,000.00 in sanctions for making “false as— ‘factual’ statements to the Court.”

Attorney Olsen may see additional discipline for his part in another lawsuit that Lake and then-candidate for Arizona Secretary of State, Mark Finchem filed in spring 2022 in an attempt to stop Maricopa and Pima counties from using electronic tabulators to count ballots in the November 2022 election.

Finchem and Lake claimed that the electronic tabulators were “hackable” and asked the courts to place an injunction on their use ahead of the November 2022 election even though Arizona law requires them.

Reportedly, in August 2022, U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi  “threw out the tabulator case and issued a scathing ruling, saying that Lake and Finchem’s claims amounted to mere ‘conjectural allegations of potential injuries.’ He later ordered $122,000 in sanctions against the attorneys in the case.”

In October 2023, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Tuchi’s decision to throw out the case and agreed it was “frivolous.”

Finchem and Lake took their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court spring, but it was rejected.

In 2023, the State Bar of Arizona began investigating Olsen, Blehm and Minnesota attorney Andrew Parker, who also represented Lake and Finchem in the tabulator case, for violating their ethical obligations as attorneys practicing law in the Grand Canyon State.

Olsen is licensed to practice law in Maryland, and was reportedly admitted to practice in Arizona only in these specific cases, the harshest possible punishment he faces is a formal reprimand, according to Arizona State Bar spokesman Joe Hengemuehler.

Senior Counsel for the Bar, Hunter Perlmeter argued adamantly against Olsen’s assertion about the now infamous “Cyber Ninjas” audit.

“The Cyber Ninjas (the firm that conducted the audit) counted only two contests (of more than 60 on each ballot), it took them more than three months, it cost millions of dollars, they claim that they went bankrupt as a result, and the hand count results were so problematic, the Arizona Senate was forced to purchase paper-counting machines in an attempt to reconcile the hand counts’ botched numbers,” Perlmeter wrote.

Perlmeter added, that the bungled “audit” was actually proof of why ordering a hand count six months before a midterm election was undoable.

“(Olsen’s) conduct caused actual harm by attacking the integrity of Arizona voting systems based on a distorted view of the applicable facts and law that undermined public confidence in the system, and burdened the defendants and the court in addressing Respondent’s claims,” Perlmeter wrote. “(Olsen) also sought relief that could have imposed substantially greater injury on the defendants and the public.”

A hearing for Olsen and the Bar to plead their cases when it comes to the discipline recommendations for the election challenge case is set for July 30.