When the Florida Bar didn’t want to perform the most basic of its duties as the state’s designated professional licensing authority, it invented a new rule out of whole cloth to justify punting a detailed ethics complaint about then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. The entity charged with maintaining the integrity of the Florida legal profession couldn’t even consider the complaint against Bondi because it cannot investigate a sitting officer appointed under the U.S. Constitution while in office.
Then Pam Bondi got booted from office and over 120 scholars, practitioners, and former judges wrote to remind the Florida Bar that this obliterates its lone excuse for not taking action. The Florida Bar has ignored this fact for months now.
Now, Florida’s made up “constitutional officer” doctrine has a new customer!
The Bar has refused to open an investigation into DHS General Counsel James Percival after he posted on social media telling his followers to consider four current federal judges as on par with the murderers and rapists that the administration profiles under its “Worst of the Worst” branding. In “Worst of the Worst, District Judge Edition,” Percival explicitly named federal judges who ruled against his office and sent his January 6 flying monkeys off to add to the rash of violent threats against federal judges.
To this, the Florida Bar responds that it, “does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office” because doing so “could encroach on the authority of the federal government concerning these officials and the exercise of their duties.”
The complaint was brought by Democracy Defenders Fund and Lawyers Defending American Democracy alongside 128 former federal and state judges, including retired Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente, Michael Luttig, Nancy Gertner, Shira Scheindlin, and Ursula Ungaro. They asked the Bar to probe Percival for violating Rule 4-8.2(a) with his posts. This is the provision that bars lawyers from making statements they know “to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge….”
The Florida Bar, wanting no part of protecting judges or the judicial system, ran back to the simple trick that got it out of the Bondi inquiry originally. Where does the Bar find this ethical Hall Pass for federal officials? This is the rule the Bar keeps hiding behind, in full:
Inquiries raised or complaints presented by or to The Florida Bar about the conduct of a constitutional officer who is required to be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar must be commenced within 6 years after the constitutional officer vacates office.
That is Rule 3-7.16(d). It’s a statute of limitations extension, not a bar on acting until the subject of the complaint leaves office. The Florida Bar should know this because they went to the Florida Supreme Court in 2022 and asked that the rule be rewritten to allow them to punt investigations while the person is in office and the court said NO. In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar-Chapters 3 &14 (Sep. 7, 2023).
Eagle-eyed readers might notice that the rule is expressly limited to officials whose jobs are conditioned upon Florida bar membership, which is in there because the rule only extends to Florida state officials under the state constitution. Neither the United States Attorney General, nor the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security need Florida bar membership. Indeed, in Florida, the definition of constitutional officer is limited to offices explicitly created by the state constitution. In fact, all the “constitutional officers” in Florida are elected officials and the Bar itself has always read this rule with that limit in mind.
But the Florida Bar contends that expanding this to a ban on investigating federal employees is in the vibes of the rule.
Rather, the Bar is taking the position that anyone in the federal executive branch requiring Senate confirmation by statute is both a de facto constitutional officer of Florida and somehow covered by the rule’s limitation to officers “required to be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.” Percival could theoretically move his own membership to inactive this afternoon and keep the job.
Ignoring the Bondi complaint was bold and unwarranted, but at least she ran the Department of Justice. The general counsel isn’t even in the line of succession to run DHS! The Florida Bar is running an immunity doctrine of undisclosed scope with no published standard for who qualifies and no obligation to explain itself, because the one time anybody tried to force the question the Florida Supreme Court dodged it on standing rather than touch it.
The Florida Bar also told a complainant it had an active file open on Lindsey Halligan, and then walked the statement back the day after. They didn’t cite the “constitutional officer” line then, but if they’re extending it to Percival, they likely wanted to cover Halligan too, but the complaint arrived after she left office and even their most creative minds couldn’t bring themselves to untie the intellectual knot of claiming this constitutional appointment logic extends to people the courts conclusively determined to be illegally appointed. So that complaint joins the post-firing Bondi complaint as something the Bar just ignores without even attempting an explanation.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, sensing an opportunity to grandstand, wrote the Bar demanding dismissal of a “meritless” complaint on the theory that criticizing government officials isn’t misconduct and “[j]udges are no exception.” Professor Steve Vladeck noted that criticizing judges is indeed valid expression, but that Percival wasn’t a commentator, but the lawyer for a litigant. Counsel for a party to active litigation telling the judges what their rulings are going to cost them is an entirely different matter. Which, of course, is why states have rules like Rule 4-8.2(a).
The underlying conduct fits squarely within that rule. Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered at her home by a man angry about her rulings, warned that Percival was putting a bullseye on the judges he named. The Marshals Service logged more than 400 threats against individual federal judges in fiscal 2026, reaching roughly 12 percent of the active bench. Percival’s list contained no Republican appointees, despite judges from both parties having ruled against this administration’s immigration operation over 10,000 times in the second Trump term. This highlights the selective nature of the threat — Percival may disagree with many decisions, but he selected only judges that couldn’t possibly offend his fellow Republicans when posting the next targets for his mouth breathing followers.
Percival marked the occasion with dignity and humility:
If the profession is to survive this administration, licensing authorities need to get serious about sanctioning and disbarring these people. These are not close ethical calls. This is the exact behavior that we created professional discipline to punish, and every time a licensing authority looks the other way it undermines the rule of law and its own credibility.
The Florida Bar’s disciplinary function is run by cowards with no respect for the integrity of the profession. The rest of the nation’s professional licensing institutions don’t have to be.
Earlier: DHS General Counsel Names Four Federal Judges ‘Worst Of The Worst’ As Threats Against Judiciary Hit 564
New Ethics Complaint Reminds Florida Bar That Pam Bondi Isn’t Attorney General Anymore
Lindsey Halligan Under Investigation And The DOJ Is Big Mad About It
When Florida Bar Said It Was Serious About Ethical Violations It MEANT To Say, ‘Yes, Sir. Glory To The MAGA Empire!’
Bondi Says She’s The Bar Now
Which Trump Administration Lawyer Most Deserves To Lose Their License? An ATL Madness Bracket
Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump’s Lawyers
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Florida Bar Hides From Ethical Responsibilities, Shrugs As DHS Lawyer Compares Federal Judges To Murderers And Rapists appeared first on Above the Law.
When the Florida Bar didn’t want to perform the most basic of its duties as the state’s designated professional licensing authority, it invented a new rule out of whole cloth to justify punting a detailed ethics complaint about then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. The entity charged with maintaining the integrity of the Florida legal profession couldn’t even consider the complaint against Bondi because it cannot investigate a sitting officer appointed under the U.S. Constitution while in office.
Then Pam Bondi got booted from office and over 120 scholars, practitioners, and former judges wrote to remind the Florida Bar that this obliterates its lone excuse for not taking action. The Florida Bar has ignored this fact for months now.
Now, Florida’s made up “constitutional officer” doctrine has a new customer!
The Bar has refused to open an investigation into DHS General Counsel James Percival after he posted on social media telling his followers to consider four current federal judges as on par with the murderers and rapists that the administration profiles under its “Worst of the Worst” branding. In “Worst of the Worst, District Judge Edition,” Percival explicitly named federal judges who ruled against his office and sent his January 6 flying monkeys off to add to the rash of violent threats against federal judges.
To this, the Florida Bar responds that it, “does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office” because doing so “could encroach on the authority of the federal government concerning these officials and the exercise of their duties.”
The complaint was brought by Democracy Defenders Fund and Lawyers Defending American Democracy alongside 128 former federal and state judges, including retired Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente, Michael Luttig, Nancy Gertner, Shira Scheindlin, and Ursula Ungaro. They asked the Bar to probe Percival for violating Rule 4-8.2(a) with his posts. This is the provision that bars lawyers from making statements they know “to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge….”
The Florida Bar, wanting no part of protecting judges or the judicial system, ran back to the simple trick that got it out of the Bondi inquiry originally. Where does the Bar find this ethical Hall Pass for federal officials? This is the rule the Bar keeps hiding behind, in full:
Inquiries raised or complaints presented by or to The Florida Bar about the conduct of a constitutional officer who is required to be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar must be commenced within 6 years after the constitutional officer vacates office.
That is Rule 3-7.16(d). It’s a statute of limitations extension, not a bar on acting until the subject of the complaint leaves office. The Florida Bar should know this because they went to the Florida Supreme Court in 2022 and asked that the rule be rewritten to allow them to punt investigations while the person is in office and the court said NO. In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar-Chapters 3 &14 (Sep. 7, 2023).
Eagle-eyed readers might notice that the rule is expressly limited to officials whose jobs are conditioned upon Florida bar membership, which is in there because the rule only extends to Florida state officials under the state constitution. Neither the United States Attorney General, nor the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security need Florida bar membership. Indeed, in Florida, the definition of constitutional officer is limited to offices explicitly created by the state constitution. In fact, all the “constitutional officers” in Florida are elected officials and the Bar itself has always read this rule with that limit in mind.
But the Florida Bar contends that expanding this to a ban on investigating federal employees is in the vibes of the rule.
Rather, the Bar is taking the position that anyone in the federal executive branch requiring Senate confirmation by statute is both a de facto constitutional officer of Florida and somehow covered by the rule’s limitation to officers “required to be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.” Percival could theoretically move his own membership to inactive this afternoon and keep the job.
Ignoring the Bondi complaint was bold and unwarranted, but at least she ran the Department of Justice. The general counsel isn’t even in the line of succession to run DHS! The Florida Bar is running an immunity doctrine of undisclosed scope with no published standard for who qualifies and no obligation to explain itself, because the one time anybody tried to force the question the Florida Supreme Court dodged it on standing rather than touch it.
The Florida Bar also told a complainant it had an active file open on Lindsey Halligan, and then walked the statement back the day after. They didn’t cite the “constitutional officer” line then, but if they’re extending it to Percival, they likely wanted to cover Halligan too, but the complaint arrived after she left office and even their most creative minds couldn’t bring themselves to untie the intellectual knot of claiming this constitutional appointment logic extends to people the courts conclusively determined to be illegally appointed. So that complaint joins the post-firing Bondi complaint as something the Bar just ignores without even attempting an explanation.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, sensing an opportunity to grandstand, wrote the Bar demanding dismissal of a “meritless” complaint on the theory that criticizing government officials isn’t misconduct and “[j]udges are no exception.” Professor Steve Vladeck noted that criticizing judges is indeed valid expression, but that Percival wasn’t a commentator, but the lawyer for a litigant. Counsel for a party to active litigation telling the judges what their rulings are going to cost them is an entirely different matter. Which, of course, is why states have rules like Rule 4-8.2(a).
The underlying conduct fits squarely within that rule. Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered at her home by a man angry about her rulings, warned that Percival was putting a bullseye on the judges he named. The Marshals Service logged more than 400 threats against individual federal judges in fiscal 2026, reaching roughly 12 percent of the active bench. Percival’s list contained no Republican appointees, despite judges from both parties having ruled against this administration’s immigration operation over 10,000 times in the second Trump term. This highlights the selective nature of the threat — Percival may disagree with many decisions, but he selected only judges that couldn’t possibly offend his fellow Republicans when posting the next targets for his mouth breathing followers.
Percival marked the occasion with dignity and humility:
If the profession is to survive this administration, licensing authorities need to get serious about sanctioning and disbarring these people. These are not close ethical calls. This is the exact behavior that we created professional discipline to punish, and every time a licensing authority looks the other way it undermines the rule of law and its own credibility.
The Florida Bar’s disciplinary function is run by cowards with no respect for the integrity of the profession. The rest of the nation’s professional licensing institutions don’t have to be.
Earlier: DHS General Counsel Names Four Federal Judges ‘Worst Of The Worst’ As Threats Against Judiciary Hit 564
New Ethics Complaint Reminds Florida Bar That Pam Bondi Isn’t Attorney General Anymore
Lindsey Halligan Under Investigation And The DOJ Is Big Mad About It
When Florida Bar Said It Was Serious About Ethical Violations It MEANT To Say, ‘Yes, Sir. Glory To The MAGA Empire!’
Bondi Says She’s The Bar Now
Which Trump Administration Lawyer Most Deserves To Lose Their License? An ATL Madness Bracket
Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump’s Lawyers
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
