The Justice Department has proposed a rule that would let the attorney general intervene in—and potentially delay—state bar investigations of current and former federal prosecutors for conduct arising from their work at DOJ. The plan has drawn swift criticism from state officials, former prosecutors, ethics scholars and judges who say it would weaken an important independent check on government lawyers.
Under current practice, federal prosecutors are subject to state bar licensing and discipline. The proposed regulation would allow the attorney general to request an initial review of complaints against department attorneys and to seek a temporary hold on state investigations while DOJ conducts its own review. The department argues the change is necessary to curb a wave of what it describes as politically motivated bar complaints intended to chill DOJ lawyers’ advocacy.
DOJ’s proposal contends that “political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process,” citing recent filings against senior figures — including former Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House pardon attorney Ed Martin — as examples of targeted efforts to interfere with department advocacy. DOJ frames the rule as flowing from a January executive order on correcting perceived “weaponization of law enforcement.”
Opponents counter that the rule would strip away one of the last independent accountability mechanisms for federal lawyers. Michael Frisch, ethics counsel at Georgetown University Law Center, called the proposal part of a broader attack on the rule of law and said it would threaten lawyers’ ethical accountability. Legal scholars such as Susan Carle of American University argue the rule conflicts with the McDade-Murtha Amendment, a 1998 provision requiring federal prosecutors to follow state and local professional responsibility rules where they practice; if finalized, the regulation could face litigation on that basis.
The proposals reopen longstanding tensions over state authority to discipline federal attorneys. Prior administrations pursued policies that limited state oversight — including the Clinton-era “Reno Rule” — but Congress clarified states’ power in the 1990s, resulting in the McDade-Murtha provision. Critics say the new effort disregards that legislative settlement.
Recent high-profile discipline matters have sharpened the debate. Lawyers involved in post-2020 election efforts, such as John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, faced disbarment or license suspensions. Jeffrey Clark, a former DOJ official accused of dishonesty connected to post-election actions, has faced a D.C. disciplinary board recommendation for disbarment that the department is contesting. Since President Trump’s return to the White House, several DOJ officials have come under scrutiny; Ed Martin has sought to move his D.C. Bar proceeding into federal court.
Advocacy groups have driven some of the filings. Lawyers Defending American Democracy, formed after the 2020 election, has filed multiple complaints against DOJ officials, including one against Pam Bondi alleging she pressured department lawyers to act improperly; the Florida Bar declined to investigate and Bondi remains in good standing there, though she has since been removed from the attorney general post. The group also lodged a complaint with the D.C. Bar against Drew Ensign, head of DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation, alleging he misled courts and failed to address misconduct by subordinates. A separate contempt inquiry by a D.C. judge into Ensign and others was curtailed by an appeals court; the D.C. Bar has not yet said whether it will pursue the Ensign complaint.
Supporters of the proposed rule say the surge in complaints against department lawyers shows the need for a different approach. Conservative groups and some Republican state officials back giving DOJ greater control over ethics reviews: America First Legal urged DOJ to centralize authority over complaints, and a coalition of 14 Republican state attorneys general filed comments endorsing the proposal as a way to create a more uniform ethics process while respecting state interests.
Opponents include mostly Democratic state attorneys general, the American Bar Association, and judges from the Supreme Court of Georgia, who warned that the regulation would represent an unacceptable federal intrusion into an area traditionally handled by states. Critics argue DOJ should seek congressional action rather than attempting to overturn established practice through administrative rulemaking.
Libertarian-leaning critics also expressed concern. Matthew Cavedon of the Cato Institute acknowledged problems in state bar processes but warned that shifting oversight inward would reduce accountability and transparency. Other observers pointed to recent early removals of oversight officials — including the head of DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the director of the Office of Government Ethics, along with several inspectors general — as evidence that internal review mechanisms may be vulnerable to political change.
DOJ says the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) would be the attorney general’s designee to handle initial reviews. Opponents counter that relying on OPR, an internal office subject to leadership turnover, would not provide meaningful external oversight and could allow wrongdoing to be concealed from later state inquiries.
The rule was advanced while Pam Bondi led the department; she has since been removed, and many expect Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to press forward with the effort. DOJ did not respond to requests for comment about next steps.
The proposal has generated a flurry of public comments from state attorneys general, bar organizations and advocacy groups on both sides. Its ultimate fate likely hinges on legal challenges over whether it conflicts with the McDade-Murtha Amendment and longstanding state authority to police attorneys, as well as on political and administrative decisions within DOJ.