AG Pam Bondi Fights Back: Asserts Control Over State Bar Probes into Lawyers’ Ethics Amid ‘Unprecedented Weaponization’ Claims

In an effort to address the “weaponization” of complaints, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is asserting a “right” to instruct state bar authorities to pause their investigations into the ethics of DOJ lawyers through new rulemaking initiatives.

The proposed regulation, highlighted by Bloomberg Law on Wednesday, has now entered a 30-day period open for public comments. This ambitious regulation would allow Bondi to federalize the examination of complaints against her attorneys, granting her the “right” to ask bar disciplinary authorities to halt any concurrent investigations until the Department concludes its review.

According to the draft rule, if implemented, whenever a third party submits a bar complaint or if bar disciplinary authorities initiate an investigation independently, the Attorney General would have the primary authority to review the allegations. The rule states, “The Attorney General or her appointee will inform the relevant State bar disciplinary authorities and the involved lawyer of her intention to exercise this right and will request that the State bar authorities pause any investigative actions requiring input from a Department attorney until her review is complete.”

This means that any time Bondi becomes aware of a complaint against one of her attorneys, she could request any state bar in the country to suspend their proceedings while she evaluates the claims. Should these bars “decline,” the DOJ is instructed to “take necessary measures to prevent bar disciplinary authorities from obstructing the Attorney General’s examination of the allegations,” although the specifics of these measures remain unspecified.

Bondi asserts the “right” to step in if a complaint is filed by a “third party” or if a state bar authority initiates an investigation without a complaint. While Bondi and her supporters argue that this approach would promote a fair process for DOJ attorneys and reduce expenses, it also seems to give her the power to selectively “review” and potentially dismiss cases of misconduct, while asserting federal influence over state bar inquiries.

“If the Attorney General decides not to complete her review, she or her designee shall notify the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities so they may resume their investigations or disciplinary proceedings. The Attorney General or her designee shall inform the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities of the completion of her review. As appropriate, the Attorney General or her designee shall also inform the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities of the results of her review, including if the review finds that the attorney for the government did not violate any rule of ethical conduct while engaging in that attorney’s duties,” the rule went on.

There have been numerous examples of such “third party” complaints, whether against onetime purported interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, formerly acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone, and ex-Trump criminal defense attorney turned DOJ bigwig turned federal judge for a lifetime Emil Bove. With Halligan and Sarcone, third-party groups filed complaints with state bars. With Bove, one complaint was submitted to the chief judge of the 3rd Circuit and related to conduct unrelated to his time in the DOJ. A state bar complaint separately raised “misconduct” claims that his order to dismiss former NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ bribery charges used the “prosecutorial power of the federal government to coerce an elected state municipal officer to pursue policies to the political benefit of President Donald J. Trump.”

While bashing “political activists” bringing complaints against high-level DOJ officials current and former, the would-be rule did not name any of the officials but provided enough information about their titles to identify them.

“For example, political activists have filed bar complaints against senior Department officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, the former Acting Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division, and the former interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, as well as career Department of Justice attorneys,” the document said. “Even more troubling than the recent spate of State bar complaints is the willingness of some State bar disciplinary authorities to give credence to such complaints.”

Those current or former officials appear to be Todd Blanche, Bove, Eric Hamilton, and Ed Martin.

The information attached to the notice of proposed rulemaking said the “unprecedented weaponization of the State bar complaint process” justified the change, because allowing DOJ attorneys to be subject to processes often dubbed “lawfare” or “bar-fare” risks “chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers.”

“That chilling effect, in turn, would interfere with the broad statutory authority of the Attorney General to manage and supervise Department attorneys,” the document stated.

Former Obama administration U.S. attorney and MS NOW columnist Joyce White Vance, for one, promptly slammed the proposal as “bunk.”

“State bars license attorneys & consider misconduct allegations. Historically, state bars have deferred to DOJ’s internal discipline process as a courtesy, but they are not obligated to, and the AG has zero authority to suspend state bar operations,” Vance said. “DOJ can’t avoid investigation and incredible allegations of clear, ethical violations, like lying to or misleading judges and failing to follow court orders if state bars want to pursue them. The process is usually long and involves wrist slaps instead of jumping straight to disbarment, but egregious cases deserve serious discipline.”