Almost two months after unveiling a proposed rule on March 5 to let the attorney general review ethics complaints against DOJ attorneys before state bar action, the Justice Department faces intensifying debate. With Pam Bondi out as attorney general and Todd Blanche acting in the role, officials cite rising politically motivated filings—citing cases involving Bondi, Ed Martin and Drew Ensign—while critics decry it as undermining state oversight and the McDade-Murtha Amendment.
The rule, titled "Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys," would empower the attorney general to request preemptive review of complaints filed with state bars against current or former DOJ lawyers for official conduct, with the Office of Professional Responsibility handling internal checks. Building on the initial March proposal, DOJ argues it protects lawyers from activist harassment amid a Trump executive order addressing government misconduct.
Examples include complaints against former Attorney General Pam Bondi (Florida), pardon attorney Ed Martin (D.C.), and immigration litigator Drew Ensign, from groups like Lawyers Defending American Democracy. Bondi, who led during the proposal's announcement, was removed April 2; Acting AG Blanche is expected to finalize it, though DOJ declined NPR comment.
Critics like Georgetown's Michael Frisch call it a violation of the 1998 McDade-Murtha Amendment mandating state ethics compliance for federal prosecutors. American University’s Susan Carle sees federal overreach. The American Bar Association and Democratic AGs agree.
Supporters, including 14 Republican state AGs and America First Legal, back a uniform federal approach balancing state roles without chilling DOJ advocacy.
