In announcing its recommendation, which will now head to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the board referenced arguments during the hearings that Giuliani had weaponized his law license to undermine the election — a contention Giuliani has characterized as “political” and lacking merit.

The board in its decision emphasized the degree to which the complaint advanced unfounded claims of fraud, stating that an attorney’s disbarment due to “frivolous litigation cases” is rare but that the Pennsylvania lawsuit was unprecedented.

“We conclude that disbarment is the only sanction that will protect the public, the courts and the integrity of the legal profession, and deter other lawyers from launching similarly baseless claims in the pursuit of such wide-ranging yet completely unjustified relief,” Bernadette C. Sargeant, the board’s chair, wrote in the 62-page decision.

The board in its decision highlighted several elements of the Pennsylvania lawsuit, including Giuliani’s allegations that election boards in seven Pennsylvania counties were engaged in a deliberate scheme to change the outcome of the election by counting mail-in ballots that should not have been counted. The board also noted that Giuliani urged a federal judge to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters even though he had no “objectively reliable evidence” that any such scheme existed or that any illegal mail-in ballots had been counted.

Giuliani’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of Trump, was rejected by a judge. A federal appeals court refused to let the campaign file a revised complaint. During his testimony before the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee for the board, Giuliani often minimized his role in the litigation while asserting that he had done nothing wrong.

The Republican former mayor said then that other attorneys were responsible for the language in the suit and that he had little time to thoroughly investigate the allegations himself before filing it. He claimed doing so is common practice, as allegations in lawsuits often are investigated after cases are filed.

In arguing the case against Giuliani, Hamilton P. Fox III rejected those claims and said that Giuliani had used his law license “to undermine the basic premise of the democratic system that we all live in, that has been in place since the 1800s in this country.”

Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Giuliani, said the decision was a partisan one intended to “destroy the credibility of the American justice system all in an effort to beat President Trump and to hold onto power.”

“I call on rank-and-file members of the D.C. Bar Association to speak out against this irresponsible and anti-American recommendation—whether you agree with the mayor’s politics or not,” he said in an emailed statement.

Giuliani, 80, has been licensed to practice in the District since being admitted to the D.C. Bar in 1976. Giuliani’s license has been temporarily suspended in the District after the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division in 2021 suspended his license in that state.

D.C. Court of Appeals judges will hear oral arguments before making the final decision. A date has not been scheduled.

This story has been updated with comment from a spokesman for Giuliani

Numerous showers and even some thunderstorms erupted during the afternoon — several unloading pea-sized chunks of ice. Some locations dodged the deluge and our 10 out of 10 rating was verified. But other places were blasted by the sudden cloud bursts, repeatedly.

Falls Church was one such place. Red blobs on the radar swept over the Virginia suburb in rapid succession. Lincolnia and Alexandria were also hit.

“I was promised 10/10. I’d like a refund please,” tweeted Capital Weather Gang follower @MikeHercz.

The National Weather Service had also predicted a precipitation-free afternoon.

So how did we get it so wrong?

Despite the fact a front had cleared the area 24 hours earlier, a disturbance packed with cold air at high altitudes zipped overhead. We didn’t think it would produce rain because the air was very dry near the ground.

But as the sun heated the ground and the warm air at low elevations ascended and contrasted with the chilly air aloft, clouds bubbled up. The disturbance was vigorous enough for tall, precipitating-producing clouds to mature.

And so it rained and hailed. Thursday marked the eighth day in a row with at least a trace of rain in Washington.

There were some computer models that showed a 10 percent chance of rain. That means in 9 out of 10 cases, it would have stayed dry in similar circumstances.

A better forecast would’ve called for increasing afternoon clouds and a slight chance of a shower or storm. The day’s rating probably should’ve been an 8 or so, rather than a 10.

What are the takeaways here?

1) We should include a chance of a shower in our forecasts when there’s strong sunshine and an intense high-altitude disturbance passing by.

2) Weather forecasting is humbling.