The U.S. Justice Department has proposed a regulation that would require state bar authorities to pause investigative steps against current or former DOJ attorneys for alleged ethics violations tied to their federal duties while the department conducts its own review. The proposal, published as a notice of proposed rulemaking on March 5, 2026, cites the McDade Amendment as its legal basis and says the change is needed amid what it describes as increasingly politicized bar complaints.
The Justice Department has proposed changes to its regulations governing how allegations of professional misconduct against its attorneys are handled, asserting that the attorney general has broad authority to design an enforcement system that “assure[s] compliance” with the McDade Amendment, the 1998 law that subjects federal prosecutors and other DOJ lawyers to state ethics rules.
The proposed rule—titled “Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys” and published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2026—would establish a formal process for the attorney general or a designee to review bar complaints and other allegations against department lawyers. Under the proposal, before a state, territorial or District of Columbia bar authority takes investigative steps based on alleged ethics violations tied to a lawyer’s federal duties, the department would seek to review the allegations first and would ask the bar authority to suspend parallel investigative activity until the department’s review is completed.
The department’s justification relies on its reading of the McDade Amendment’s text—particularly the provision directing the attorney general to “make and amend rules” to assure compliance—and on broader statutes that place federal litigation under the supervision of the attorney general. The notice argues that while DOJ attorneys must follow the same substantive ethics standards as other lawyers, Congress did not expressly grant states enforcement authority over federal lawyers’ official-duty conduct, leaving room for DOJ to structure how compliance is enforced.
Legal commentators have questioned whether, and to what extent, a federal regulation could be used to delay or deter state disciplinary proceedings. One frequently cited constraint is the Supreme Court’s decision in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association (1982), which held that federal courts should generally refrain from interfering with ongoing state bar disciplinary matters under the Younger abstention doctrine when state proceedings are judicial in nature and provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal issues.
The proposal arrives amid a broader surge of politically charged disputes over DOJ leadership and oversight. Recent reporting has described ethics complaints involving prominent Trump administration-era Justice Department figures, including former interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan, who has faced bar complaints connected to her conduct in office. Separately, news organizations have reported that the Florida Bar later characterized an earlier statement suggesting it was investigating Halligan as erroneous, saying instead that it was monitoring related legal proceedings.
The proposed regulation is not yet final and would be subject to the federal rulemaking process, including public comment and potential revisions before any implementation.
