Share and Follow
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is shifting its attention towards state bar associations as it seeks to address concerns about the misuse of the legal system.
Amid a growing number of complaints against its attorneys, the DOJ is aiming to exert more influence over ethics investigations that can lead to disciplinary actions such as disbarment.
This move has sparked widespread debate about the department’s desire to tighten its control over these significant investigations.
“This is a power grab by the DOJ,” stated Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at NYU School of Law.
In a notice published in the Federal Register, the DOJ proposed a new regulation that would allow it to intervene in the disciplinary investigations conducted by state bars, granting it the authority to initially review any allegations against its lawyers.
It would amount to a request for state bar authorities to suspend their probes until Attorney General Pam Bondi completes her own, though DOJ itself could not force the state bars to halt their reviews. DOJ declined to comment on the matter Thursday.
Such investigations can eventually lead to disbarment, but the process can take years to complete.
The Justice Department casts the proposed rule as an extension of President Trump’s day-one directive to end perceived weaponization of the federal government.
The notice suggests that “political activists” have used bar complaints and probes to target DOJ lawyers, and that state bars’ willingness to investigate those complaints are “troubling.” Trump’s “broad pronouncements” necessitate a review of how Bondi manages and disciplines DOJ lawyers, it says.
“This unprecedented weaponization of the State bar complaint process risks chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers,” read DOJ’s submitted overview of the proposed rule. “That chilling effect, in turn, would interfere with the broad statutory authority of the Attorney General to manage and supervise Department attorneys.”
Since Trump’s return to the White House, several of his top Justice Department officials have faced such complaints from watchdog groups, including Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, the former No. 3 DOJ official who is now a federal appellate judge. Rank-and-file prosecutors have also faced complaints.
It’s not clear how many complaints against Trump administration lawyers have prompted investigations.
Lindsey Halligan was believed to be under investigation after a letter from The Florida Bar to a watchdog group said she was and the bar declined to “comment on active cases.” However, on Friday, the bar said it “erroneously” stated that any investigation against Halligan was “pending.”
“In response to an inquiry from a complainant, The Florida Bar wrote a letter to the complainant erroneously stating that there is a pending Bar investigation of member Lindsay Halligan,” said Jennifer Krell Davis, director of communications for the state bar.
“There is no such pending Bar investigation of Lindsay Halligan,” she continued. “In this case, The Florida Bar received a complaint against Lindsay Halligan and, consistent with standard practice, the Bar is monitoring the ongoing legal proceedings underlying the complaint.”
Halligan secured indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), but those prosecutions were thrown out after a federal judge found she was unlawfully appointed U.S. attorney.
The Justice Department’s appeal of that decision is ongoing.
A person familiar with the Florida Bar situation told The Hill that the bar opened a “monitor file” on Halligan, which is its regular process for when any attorney is involved in an ongoing legal proceeding. It ensures that the organization checks back to see the outcome.
Bondi’s proposed rule had garnered more than 4,800 public comments as of Friday afternoon, many expressing disapproval.
Liz Oyer, former pardon attorney, wrote on Substack that the proposed rule “would sound the death knell for ethical guardrails inside the Justice Department—a concept already clinging to life support.”
“Rules of ethics and professional responsibility exist precisely for the purpose of defining the limits of zealous advocacy,” she said. “Lawyers have a duty of loyalty to their client, but they also have a duty of candor to the court.”
It’s not the first time the Trump administration has butted heads with bar associations.
The Trump administration in April barred its lawyers from attending American Bar Association (ABA) events as Trump’s crackdown on so-called Big Law firms accelerated, The New York Times reported. In May, Bondi told the ABA that the Trump administration would no longer cooperate as the organization vets its judicial nominees.
The ABA sued the Trump administration over its crackdown on the legal profession, which it cast as a “law firm intimidation policy.”
And Bondi’s brother, Brad Bondi, ran to lead the D.C. Bar Association but overwhelmingly lost his bid in June in a race that saw record turnout.
But the battle may not stop at the bars. Gillers, the ethics professor, suggested that the proposed rule “contains a threat.”
The notice says that the proposed rule would provide that, if the state bars refuse Bondi’s request to intervene, DOJ would take “appropriate action” to prevent the bar from “interfering” with the federal government’s review.
Gillers suggested that the rule would ultimately chip away at state courts’ power, not the state bars’, when it comes to enforcing discipline. He called it “an assault on federalism.”
“DOJ would usurp the traditional power of the state courts, not the bar, over the practice of law,” Gillers said.