material misrepresentations of fact and done for political purposes falls within the authority of the court to determine and not this office.\u201d<\/p>\n
Folks\u2026 your professional gatekeepers in 2025!<\/p>\n \u201cIf, when confronted with actions as egregious as Ms.\u00a0Halligan\u2019s, a state bar, which allegedly polices the conduct of its members, claims it can do nothing more than reiterate the findings of a court, what purpose does it serve?\u201d asked Campaign for Accountability CEO Michelle Kuppersmith. \u201cThe courts have been doing their job in recognizing misconduct when they see it. State bars must do the same.\u201d<\/p>\n In fairness to the Virginia State Bar, the most egregious allegations \u2014 the ones involving Halligan\u2019s illegal actions as a squatter pretending to be a U.S. Attorney<\/a> and her shady effort to ramrod through a falsified indictment<\/a> in a desperate bid to beat the statute of limitations<\/a> \u2014 may well have been properly within the court\u2019s purview. While every adult with a frontal lobe already suspected that the judge would find that Halligan\u2019s misadventures compromised the cases, there\u2019s nothing wrong with the state bar exercising prudence and steering clear of those allegations<\/em> until the court acted. For the record, the federal judge presiding over these matters has since confirmed that Halligan possessed no more authority than \u201cany private citizen off the street \u2014 attorney or not\u201d and kicked the indictments as void.<\/p>\n The problem with the \u201cwe have to defer to the courts\u201d excuse from the Virginia Bar is that the ethics complaint raises more issues<\/em> beyond the status of the indictments. Issues that explicitly fall outside<\/em> the authority of the court to determine. By shrugging off the whole complaint over the limited issue of the indictments, the Virginia Bar created a troubling zone of unaccountability.<\/p>\n As the administration pressure tests every guardrail against corruption and abuse, it relishes these pockets of deferment, where no authority claims responsibility. The courts can\u2019t discipline a lawyer for generally lawless conduct, and the state bar now claims it can\u2019t discipline a lawyer without a notarized and engraved permission slip from a judge that reads \u201cPlease Discipline This Lawyer.\u201d Professional disciplinary authorities are supposed to have a broader portfolio than the courts because unethical lawyers can stay on the right side of the courts while still presenting a risk to the public. A state bar is designed<\/em> to nip this Better Call Lindsey<\/em> pilot in the bud.<\/p>\n The Campaign for Accountability complaint included a competent representation violation, citing Halligan\u2019s criminal law experience \u2014 which amounts to \u201cwatched episode of Law & Order<\/em> (fell asleep)\u201d \u2014 and the very public firings<\/a> and sidelinings<\/a> of veteran criminal prosecutors in the office recommending against charges. This allegation is about reckless practice and wouldn\u2019t really end up in front of a judge. <\/p>\n And yet it\u2019s somehow fitting that this state cares more about bar applicants wearing suits and dresses to take the bar exam<\/a> than the possibility that someone lacks the competence to run a prosecutorial office. It\u2019s the sort of style over substance<\/em> response that captures the zeitgeist of the Trump era.<\/p>\n It included Halligan\u2019s disastrously hilarious Signal exchange with Anna Bower of Lawfare<\/a>, where she shared what she seemed to understand to be an extrajudicial disclosure of non-public, sensitive information about ongoing matters. When she belatedly tried to pull the conversation off the record, she noted that these were disappearing Signal messages. Disappearing message apps are less a prosecutor tool and more of a drug dealer thing. Except drug dealers understand the rules of evidence better than this.<\/p>\n As the complaint states:<\/p>\n Ms. Halligan\u2019s actions in contacting a journalist through Signal, setting her messages to disappear in 8 hours and retroactively claiming the exchange was off the record in an effort to secretly influence media coverage of the James case appears a deliberate violation of the FRAand, therefore, a violation of RCP 8.4(b).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n None of this turns on the court\u2019s adjudication of the matter. It\u2019s an allegation that the attorney\u2019s conduct \u2014 even if the cases weren\u2019t born losers \u2014 breaches ethical rules. If a government prosecutor has deliberately set up a spoliation device to obscure conversations with journalists she\u2019s having in an effort to improperly influence the public narrative\u2026 that\u2019s a job for a state licensing authority to investigate<\/em>. <\/p>\n Maybe the Virginia Bar will change its tune now that the court has taken action. Probably not, though. Everyone knew that the court would issue a ruling swiftly in this matter. If the bar authorities were serious about waiting to see what the court did before initiating any investigation, they could\u2019ve kept quiet another week instead of offering the legal equivalent of a \u201cthoughts and prayers\u201d tweet. At this point, they\u2019ll likely hem and haw about appeals to kick the can into oblivion. <\/p>\n This letter is a declaration of abdication. And it couldn\u2019t come at a worse time for the profession.<\/p>\n (Virginia State Bar Letter available on next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n Earlier<\/strong>: Lindsey Halligan Officially More Stupid Than You Imagined<\/a> The post Virginia State Bar Whistles Past Lindsey Halligan Ethics Complaint Claiming It\u2019s Not Their Job<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n In case anyone was wondering whether state bars would step up to hold anyone accountable if the Trump administration sends cronies to cosplay as U.S. Attorneys and fire career prosecutors so they can file bad faith criminal cases, the Virginia State Bar has helpfully answered: LOL, no.<\/p>\n Last month, the Campaign for Accountability<\/a> filed ethics complaints<\/a> in both Virginia and Florida against Lindsey Halligan, the insurance lawyer serving as the Interim-But-Not-Legally-Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging she\u2019d violated multiple rules supposedly governing members of the bar. In response, Virginia sent a polite letter explaining that it would pass on looking into allegations of a pattern of misconduct and would rather leave it to the courts. \u201cWhether criminal indictments were obtained through Folks\u2026 your professional gatekeepers in 2025!<\/p>\n \u201cIf, when confronted with actions as egregious as Ms.\u00a0Halligan\u2019s, a state bar, which allegedly polices the conduct of its members, claims it can do nothing more than reiterate the findings of a court, what purpose does it serve?\u201d asked Campaign for Accountability CEO Michelle Kuppersmith. \u201cThe courts have been doing their job in recognizing misconduct when they see it. State bars must do the same.\u201d<\/p>\n In fairness to the Virginia State Bar, the most egregious allegations \u2014 the ones involving Halligan\u2019s illegal actions as a squatter pretending to be a U.S. Attorney<\/a> and her shady effort to ramrod through a falsified indictment<\/a> in a desperate bid to beat the statute of limitations<\/a> \u2014 may well have been properly within the court\u2019s purview. While every adult with a frontal lobe already suspected that the judge would find that Halligan\u2019s misadventures compromised the cases, there\u2019s nothing wrong with the state bar exercising prudence and steering clear of those allegations<\/em> until the court acted. For the record, the federal judge presiding over these matters has since confirmed that Halligan possessed no more authority than \u201cany private citizen off the street \u2014 attorney or not\u201d and kicked the indictments as void.<\/p>\n The problem with the \u201cwe have to defer to the courts\u201d excuse from the Virginia Bar is that the ethics complaint raises more issues<\/em> beyond the status of the indictments. Issues that explicitly fall outside<\/em> the authority of the court to determine. By shrugging off the whole complaint over the limited issue of the indictments, the Virginia Bar created a troubling zone of unaccountability.<\/p>\n As the administration pressure tests every guardrail against corruption and abuse, it relishes these pockets of deferment, where no authority claims responsibility. The courts can\u2019t discipline a lawyer for generally lawless conduct, and the state bar now claims it can\u2019t discipline a lawyer without a notarized and engraved permission slip from a judge that reads \u201cPlease Discipline This Lawyer.\u201d Professional disciplinary authorities are supposed to have a broader portfolio than the courts because unethical lawyers can stay on the right side of the courts while still presenting a risk to the public. A state bar is designed<\/em> to nip this Better Call Lindsey<\/em> pilot in the bud.<\/p>\n The Campaign for Accountability complaint included a competent representation violation, citing Halligan\u2019s criminal law experience \u2014 which amounts to \u201cwatched episode of Law & Order<\/em> (fell asleep)\u201d \u2014 and the very public firings<\/a> and sidelinings<\/a> of veteran criminal prosecutors in the office recommending against charges. This allegation is about reckless practice and wouldn\u2019t really end up in front of a judge. <\/p>\n And yet it\u2019s somehow fitting that this state cares more about bar applicants wearing suits and dresses to take the bar exam<\/a> than the possibility that someone lacks the competence to run a prosecutorial office. It\u2019s the sort of style over substance<\/em> response that captures the zeitgeist of the Trump era.<\/p>\n It included Halligan\u2019s disastrously hilarious Signal exchange with Anna Bower of Lawfare<\/a>, where she shared what she seemed to understand to be an extrajudicial disclosure of non-public, sensitive information about ongoing matters. When she belatedly tried to pull the conversation off the record, she noted that these were disappearing Signal messages. Disappearing message apps are less a prosecutor tool and more of a drug dealer thing. Except drug dealers understand the rules of evidence better than this.<\/p>\n As the complaint states:<\/p>\n Ms. Halligan\u2019s actions in contacting a journalist through Signal, setting her messages to disappear in 8 hours and retroactively claiming the exchange was off the record in an effort to secretly influence media coverage of the James case appears a deliberate violation of the FRAand, therefore, a violation of RCP 8.4(b).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n None of this turns on the court\u2019s adjudication of the matter. It\u2019s an allegation that the attorney\u2019s conduct \u2014 even if the cases weren\u2019t born losers \u2014 breaches ethical rules. If a government prosecutor has deliberately set up a spoliation device to obscure conversations with journalists she\u2019s having in an effort to improperly influence the public narrative\u2026 that\u2019s a job for a state licensing authority to investigate<\/em>. <\/p>\n Maybe the Virginia Bar will change its tune now that the court has taken action. Probably not, though. Everyone knew that the court would issue a ruling swiftly in this matter. If the bar authorities were serious about waiting to see what the court did before initiating any investigation, they could\u2019ve kept quiet another week instead of offering the legal equivalent of a \u201cthoughts and prayers\u201d tweet. At this point, they\u2019ll likely hem and haw about appeals to kick the can into oblivion. <\/p>\n This letter is a declaration of abdication. And it couldn\u2019t come at a worse time for the profession.<\/p>\n (Virginia State Bar Letter available on next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n Earlier<\/strong>: Lindsey Halligan Officially More Stupid Than You Imagined<\/a> 1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In case anyone was wondering whether state bars would step up to hold anyone accountable if the Trump administration sends cronies to cosplay as U.S. Attorneys and fire career prosecutors so they can file bad faith criminal cases, the Virginia State Bar has helpfully answered: LOL, no. Last month, the Campaign for Accountability filed ethics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/12\/Nothing.jpg?resize=640%2C480&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\n
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive<\/a>
Is The Comey Case Barred By The Statute Of Limitations? It\u2019s Complicated! (But Also Yes.)<\/a><\/p>\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=188%2C125&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
material misrepresentations of fact and done for political purposes falls within the authority of the court to determine and not this office.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive<\/a>
Is The Comey Case Barred By The Statute Of Limitations? It\u2019s Complicated! (But Also Yes.)<\/a><\/p>\n
\nJoe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n