The End of Ethics
A new rule promises to snuff out any sparks of integrity remaining in the Justice Department
This week, Attorney General Pam Bondi proposed a new rule that would sound the death knell for ethical guardrails inside the Justice Department—a concept already clinging to life support. The rule would allow the Attorney General to shut down investigations by state bar associations when complaints of misconduct are filed against current or former DOJ attorneys, effectively insulating those officials from discipline even in cases of egregious misconduct.
Legally, the proposal is dubious. For over 25 years, federal law has required DOJ lawyers to adhere to the professional ethics rules of both the state where they are barred and the state(s) where they practice. State bars play a vital role in policing misconduct by federal lawyers, including through their authority to impose disciplinary sanctions such as suspension and disbarment from the practice of law. Bondi’s rule—which asserts her supremacy in a domain long entrusted to states—is sure to be subject to legal challenges from multiple quarters.
If it withstands scrutiny, the new rule promises to eviscerate the last remaining safeguard against corruption and abuse of power by lawyers representing the United States. Bondi has already meticulously eradicated the internal guardrails that have operated as the moral compass of the Justice Department across political administrations. Last year, she ousted the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which was created after Watergate to “ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency.” She fired the Director of the Departmental Ethics Office, which oversees compliance with federal ethics-in-government rules. The senior official who supervised both Directors was also forced out. No replacement has been named for any of these experienced career professionals. DOJ has also been without an Inspector General—the independent official responsible for investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement—since last July. As a result, independent oversight by state bar associations is all that remains to enforce the rules of professional conduct that govern the lawyers responsible for upholding our nation’s laws.
Bondi claims her intervention is needed to end the “unprecedented weaponization” of the bar complaint process against current and former Justice Department lawyers. She complains that “political activists” have filed misconduct complaints against senior DOJ officials—including Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Ed Martin, and others—and she condemns “the willingness of some State bar disciplinary authorities to give credence to such complaints.” Investigations by state bars, Bondi contends, risk “chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers.”
That is exactly the point. Rules of ethics and professional responsibility exist precisely for the purpose of defining the limits of zealous advocacy. Lawyers have a duty of loyalty to their client, but they also have a duty of candor to the court. Even if it serves your client’s interests, you can’t lie to a judge. You can’t hide material facts. You can’t present false evidence. This is basic stuff—rules of fair play that protect the integrity of the legal system. The rules are not hard to follow, and they have not been controversial until now.
But Pam Bondi’s Justice Department does not want to play by anyone else’s rules. Time and again, this DOJ has found that rules and laws present inconvenient obstacles to achieving the President’s political agenda. Bondi’s deputy, Todd Blanche, has declared “a war” on the courts. He and Bondi have loudly and repeatedly villainized judges who rule against them. Meanwhile, Department lawyers have deceived, misled, and disobeyed courts in staggering numbers. The pattern of malfeasance is so extensive that many courts have ceased to give the Department the “presumption of regularity” that has long favored government lawyers appearing in federal court.
Freeing the Justice Department from independent ethics oversight would be extremely problematic in any administration. But it is especially so in this one. Past generations of Justice Department attorneys have understood that their job is not to win but to do justice. A quote inscribed in the rotunda outside the Attorney General’s office reads: “The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.” Bondi’s DOJ has abandoned this historical norm in favor of a thoroughly outcome-oriented approach to law enforcement. The very fact she has proposed to eliminate independent ethics oversight proves how much it is needed. Moreover, all of the Department’s top officials came in the door with webs of conflicts of interest, stemming from prior representation of Donald Trump, other client relationships, financial interests, and familial ties. These unresolved conflicts have infected administration of justice and diminished the integrity of a once-revered institution. The proposed rule would eliminate the only viable avenue for accountability and effectively license DOJ lawyers to break the rules in service of the President’s political objectives or their own personal interests.
Before it can take effect, the rule must go through a public comment process. Anyone can submit a comment registering their opinion on the rule. It’s easy to do so online at this link. The comment period ends April 6. DOJ is required to consider and respond to the comments submitted. They may not prevent the rule from taking effect, but they will be part of the official record when the rule is (inevitably) challenged in court. Please consider taking this small step in defense of the rule of law and submitting an objection. I’m sharing below some sample text you can use and adapt, or feel free to write your own.
I am a concerned citizen who cares deeply about preserving the rule of law and upholding the integrity of our justice system. I strongly oppose this new rule, because it will diminish accountability for misconduct by government lawyers. I believe that lawyers representing the United States should be held to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. They must be subject to oversight by independent authorities like state bar associations; the Justice Department cannot be trusted to police itself. This proposed rule would allow the Attorney General to interfere with independent state bar investigations. That will greatly harm the integrity of our justice system and allow misconduct to go unpunished.
Submitted - thanks for all the work you are doing to allow justice to prevail.
Comment submitted!