The Justice Department has proposed a rule that would allow the attorney general to review and potentially delay state bar investigations into federal prosecutors, sparking criticism from legal ethics experts who say it weakens one of the last independent checks on government lawyers.
Under current law, federal prosecutors can face discipline from state bar associations, which license and oversee attorneys in their jurisdictions. The proposed change would give DOJ leadership power to conduct an initial review of complaints filed against current or former department attorneys for actions taken while working at the agency before state investigators could proceed.
What the Right Is Saying
DOJ officials say the change is necessary to address what they describe as a surge in politically motivated bar complaints targeting government lawyers. The department cited complaints filed against former Attorney General Pam Bondi in Florida and pardon attorney Ed Martin, who faces disciplinary proceedings with the D.C. bar over allegations he violated ethics rules.
"Political activists have weaponized the State bar complaint process risks chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States," DOJ said in its proposed rule. The department argued this "chilling effect" would interfere with the attorney general's statutory authority to manage and supervise DOJ lawyers.
Supporters include America First Legal, a conservative group founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. In comments on the proposed rule, the group urged DOJ to go further and give itself exclusive authority over ethics complaints against federal attorneys.
A coalition of 14 Republican state attorneys general echoed this reasoning in their public comment letter. "We're deeply concerned about how politically motivated people or groups might try to influence the DOJ's advocacy by threatening bar complaints," they wrote, calling for a "more uniform approach to attorney ethics."
What the Left Is Saying
Legal ethics experts and progressive critics say the proposal represents a dangerous consolidation of power over attorney accountability. Michael Frisch, ethics counsel at the Georgetown University Law Center, called it "part of a broad attack on the rule of law" and said it violates a 1998 federal law known as the McDade-Murtha Amendment, which requires federal prosecutors to follow state and local professional responsibility rules.
Critics also point to recent actions by the Trump administration that they say undermine independent oversight. In the first weeks back in the White House, President Trump removed the head of DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, along with the director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, and at least 17 independent inspectors general across federal agencies.
Matthew Cavedon, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, acknowledged that the current state bar process is imperfect but argued the proposed rule would make accountability worse. "Federal prosecutors are some of the most powerful people in the country, and they are among the least accountable," he told NPR. He noted that very few prosecutors have ever faced criminal charges for misconduct.
The American Bar Association and mostly Democratic state attorneys general warned the rule would erode long-standing state authority over attorney discipline. Judges from the Supreme Court of Georgia wrote that the proposal "threatens significant federal overreach into an area exclusively reserved to the States."
What the Numbers Show
The proposed rule would apply to approximately 10,000 attorneys employed by the Justice Department across its various divisions and U.S. Attorney's Offices nationwide.
State bars currently regulate more than 1.4 million licensed attorneys in the United States, including federal prosecutors who must maintain bar membership in the states where they practice.
The McDade-Murtha Amendment of 1998 explicitly requires federal prosecutors to follow state ethics rules in their jurisdiction. Legal experts say any final rule conflicting with this law could face immediate court challenges.
Recent disciplinary actions against government lawyers include: attorney John Eastman, disbarred by a California court for his role in challenging the 2020 election results; Rudy Giuliani, who lost his law licenses in New York and Washington, D.C.; and Jeffrey Clark, a former senior DOJ attorney recommended for disbarment by a D.C. disciplinary appeals board last summer.
The Bottom Line
The proposed rule represents a significant test of the balance between executive branch authority over its own attorneys and state-level accountability mechanisms designed to check prosecutorial power.
Legal observers expect Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to continue pushing toward finalizing the rule, even though Bondi has since been removed from the position. The DOJ did not respond to questions about its timeline.
The proposal is likely to face legal challenges if finalized, given concerns about its conflict with existing federal law. What happens next will depend on whether the department modifies the rule in response to public comments or moves forward despite opposition.