U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi (center) takes a photo with U.S. Rep. Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) as she arrives for U.S. President Donald Trump's State of the Union Address to a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
To crack down on the "weaponization" of complaints, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is claiming the "right," through rulemaking, to tell state bar authorities investigating her DOJ lawyers' ethics to stand down.
The proposed rule, first reported by Bloomberg Law on Wednesday, is now subject to a 30-day public comment period. Its aims are sweeping, and as written permit Bondi, as a matter of "right," to federalize review of allegations against her attorneys and to "request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department's review."
"If finalized as proposed, whenever a third party files a bar complaint alleging that a current or former Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney's duties for the Department, or whenever bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into such allegations without a complaint having been filed, the Attorney General will have the right to review the complaint and the allegations in the first instance," the rule-to-be stated. "The Attorney General or her designee will notify the applicable State bar disciplinary authorities and the affected lawyer whether she intends to exercise this right, and will request that the relevant State bar disciplinary authorities suspend any investigative steps that require information or other participation from a Department attorney in response to the allegations pending completion of her review."
In other words, any time Bondi learns of a bar complaint against one of her own, she would have authority to ask any state bar in the nation to halt their process while she reviews the claims. And if those bars "refuse," the DOJ "shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General's review of the allegations" — though it's unclear exactly what that would entail.
Bondi claimed to "have this right" to intervene if a "third party" made the complaint or a state bar authority opened a probe in lieu of a complaint. While the AG and her allies argue that this would help ensure fairness of process for DOJ attorneys and reduce costs, it could also amount to Bondi empowering herself to pick and choose which disciplinary cases to "review" and clear of misconduct, while at the same time claiming a level of federal control over state bar proceedings.
"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."
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments