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.

The summer will mark a continuation of a very warm start to 2024. Despite closing with some seasonably cool days, May will be the District’s sixth-consecutive warmer-than-normal month. While we haven’t hit 90 degrees since a few weeks ago and the air is delightfully refreshing, summer always prevails as we progress through June.

Although we don’t think it will be a memorably hot summer like those in the brutal stretch from 2010 to 2012 — the three hottest on record — this summer should be noticeably warmer than last year’s, when the number of 90-degree days was actually below normal and the average temperature was 0.8 degrees cooler than the norm.

Recent summers comparable to what we expect this year would be 2020 and 2016, which ranked fifth-hottest and third-hottest in records dating to 1872.

Assuming summer temperatures end up above normal as predicted, it’s worth noting that our “new normal” summer is hotter than it was a few decades ago. In other words, a summer that’s only somewhat warmer than normal in today’s climate would have been historically hot a few decades ago.

The area’s average high from July 6 to 27 is around 90 degrees, whereas it was previously in the upper 80s. Human-caused climate change has boosted average temperatures by over 1 degree in the past 30 years.

When putting together a summer outlook, we’re less likely to see the signals for extreme warmth or cold (relative to average) that we sometimes see in advance of winter. As such, this outlook is of low-to-medium confidence. This kind of seasonal forecasting is experimental, and errors are possible.

This outlook covers the period known as “meteorological” summer — or June 1 through Aug. 31.

Summer outlook by the numbers

June through August average temperature: About 1 degree above the average from 1991 to 2020.

Temperatures compared to average by month:

• June: 1 to 2 degrees above average.
• July: 1 degree above average.
• August: 1 degree above average.

Number of 90-degree days for June, July and August: 40, compared with an average of 34. Note that an additional six days of 90-degree temps occur on average outside June to August.

Longest streak of 90-degree days: 8 to 10 days.

Number of 100-degree days: 1 to 2.

Precipitation: Slightly below-average.

We considered several factors, described below, in preparing this outlook. It should be noted that any one factor doesn’t necessarily correlate with a particular kind of summer (e.g., warm, cool, dry or wet).

We are experiencing a rapidly waning El Niño event, and there’s a strong possibility that a La Niña pattern develops by late in the summer. The presence of either El Niño or La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean sometimes makes predicting summer conditions easier, as El Niños can favor cooler summers, while La Niñas favor hotter summers. When conditions are neutral, as we expect this summer, the signal from the Niño regions isn’t as strong.

In addition to El Niño and La Niña, we considered the persistently negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and predecessor weather patterns from the spring. These inputs informed the identification of analogues, or years with similar weather patterns, that we used in putting together our outlook.

In this case, the summers of 1998 and 2010 emerged as the best analogues. The weather during those summers was given some loose consideration in our projections for the one that is about to begin.