Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern -- two of the finest law journalists in history -- report for slate.com:

The Justice Department proposed a new rule on Wednesday purporting to block state bars from investigating and punishing DOJ lawyers accused of violating state ethics requirements. Under this rule, Attorney General Pam Bondi could freeze state bars’ probes until the department has undertaken its own independent review of any allegations—a black-box process that could stretch on extensively. Wielding this new power, Bondi could essentially quash any state investigations into ethics violations by DOJ lawyers, including accusations that these front-line attorneys lied in court, by allowing “reviews” that might last indefinitely. If upheld, the rule would bail out the many, many DOJ lawyers who allegedly breached their ethical obligations in defending the Trump administration.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/03/pam-bondi-lying-doj-supreme-court-florida.html

The proposed rule is here: https://aboutblaw.com/bk49

The proposed rule states:

§ 77.5. Review of state bar complaints and allegations against current and former attorneys for the government.

(a) Before the bar disciplinary authorities of the States, the Territories, or the District of Columbia undertake any investigative steps that seek information or otherwise require participation from an attorney for the government in response to allegations that a current or former attorney for the government violated a rule of ethical conduct while engaging in that attorney’s duties for the Department, the Attorney General shall have the right to review the allegations in the first instance. The Attorney General shall have this right whether the allegations are made in a complaint filed by a third party or the bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into the allegations without a complaint. The Attorney General or her designee shall notify the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities whether she intends to exercise her right to review the allegations and, if she does, she or her designee shall request that the bar disciplinary authorities suspend any parallel investigations or disciplinary proceedings until the completion of the review. 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.

(b) Should the relevant bar disciplinary authorities refuse the Attorney General’s request, the Department shall take appropriate action to enforce this regulation or to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General’s review of the allegations.

Adoption of this rule would run afoul of 28 U.S.C. § 530B, which provides:

(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.

(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.

(c) As used in this section, the term “attorney for the Government” includes any attorney described in section 77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations and also includes any independent counsel, or employee of such a counsel, appointed under chapter 40.

Requiring state attorney disciplinary authorities to suspend investigation pending review by the Attorney General would do nothing to assure compliance with this section. Indeed, that would actively frustrate compliance therewith.

The States have "an extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the professional conduct of the attorneys it licenses. States traditionally have exercised extensive control over the professional conduct of attorneys." Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423, 434 (1982). The ultimate objective of such control is "the protection of the public, the purification of the bar and the prevention of a reoccurrence." Ibid, quoting In re Baron, 25 N.J. 445, 449, 136 A.2d 873, 875 (1957). "The State's interest in the professional conduct of attorneys involved in the administration of criminal justice is of special importance." Id., at 434.

Per the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny, the federal courts are required to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction once a state disciplinary proceeding has been instituted.

SCOTUS has explicitly recognized in the context of attorney disciplinary proceedings, that the notion of "comity" includes:

"a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways."

Middlesex County Ethics Comm., supra, 457 U.S. at 431, quoting Younger, supra, 401 U.S. at 44.