{"id":141398,"date":"2026-01-09T14:42:12","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T22:42:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/09\/ethics-authority-wont-pursue-brendan-carr-charges-because-alleged-misconduct-was-too-obvious\/"},"modified":"2026-01-09T14:42:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T22:42:12","slug":"ethics-authority-wont-pursue-brendan-carr-charges-because-alleged-misconduct-was-too-obvious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/09\/ethics-authority-wont-pursue-brendan-carr-charges-because-alleged-misconduct-was-too-obvious\/","title":{"rendered":"Ethics Authority Won\u2019t Pursue Brendan Carr Charges Because Alleged Misconduct Was Too\u2026 Obvious?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Remember when FCC Chair Brendan Carr started publicly fronting that he\u2019d use his authority to punish Disney and ABC because Donald Trump didn\u2019t like Jimmy Kimmel making fun of him<\/a>? The Campaign for Accountability does and filed an ethics complaint<\/a> against Carr in both D.C. and Maryland back in September, alleging that his mob-like threats against ABC and its affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel\u2019s commentary violated multiple rules of professional conduct. <\/p>\n

In response, Maryland sent a polite letter explaining that they\u2019re declining to look into it because the complaint was based on \u2014 checks notes \u2014 publicly available information.<\/p>\n

\n

We have reviewed your complaint. It appears that the information you have provided is based on public websites, news reports, and social media posts. Maryland Rule 19-711(b)(2) states, \u201cBar Counsel . . . may decline a complaint submitted by an individual who provides information about an attorney derived from published news reports or third party sources where the complainant appears to have no personal knowledge of the information being submitted.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Folks\u2026 your professional gatekeepers in 2026!<\/p>\n

Last month, the Virginia State Bar decided to pass on an ethics complaint against phony U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. Manifesting Professional Responsibility Bartleby, Virginia looked at the ethics charges and replied \u201cI prefer not to<\/a>.\u201d Virginia claimed it couldn\u2019t enforce the standards of our profession because it needed to defer to the courts. In their defense, the courts do seem to be actively building a record of Halligan\u2019s deeds<\/a>. Maryland\u2019s going one better by claiming it won\u2019t consider ethical violation if they\u2019re too obviously verifiable. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe Maryland Bar Rules do not limit bar complaints only to those personally impacted by a lawyer\u2019s misconduct,\u201d Campaign for Accountability Executive Director Michelle Kuppersmith\u00a0said. \u201cAlthough their rules say they \u2018may\u2019 dismiss a complaint that draws on public accounts, it is fully within their discretion to choose otherwise. Clearly, the Bar was looking for whatever excuse it could find to duck its responsibility to hold its members accountable for misconduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

Carr\u2019s alleged misconduct wasn\u2019t some private negotiation gone wrong or an under-the-table ethical breach. The statements were made on a podcast<\/em>. He told to the world that ABC and its affiliates could \u201cdo this the easy way or the hard way\u201d and that there would be \u201cadditional work for the FCC\u201d if the network didn\u2019t take action against Kimmel. Even Ted Cruz \u2014 Ted Cruz!<\/em> \u2014 recognized these comments for what they were, calling them<\/a> \u201cright out of \u2018Goodfellas’\u201d and \u201cdangerous as hell.\u201d<\/p>\n

Maryland authorities could themselves<\/em> have \u201cpersonal knowledge of the information being submitted\u201d if they would just open up their Spotify. The complaint alleged violations of multiple rules, including D.C. Rule 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice), Rule 8.4(e) (implying an ability to improperly influence a government agency), and Rule 4.4(a) (using means that serve no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden a third person).<\/p>\n

Just because disciplinary officials can<\/em> decline to take the case, that doesn\u2019t mean they should<\/em>. A rule allowing bar counsel to decline complaints based on news reports might make sense in some contexts. No one wants the disciplinary authorities launching investigations every time someone reads a misleading headline about a lawyer. But the alleged misconduct here is the public statement itself<\/em>. There is no other avenue to acquire knowledge of these alleged violations than listening to the public statement.<\/p>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, Carr has raised other ethics questions<\/a> related to allegations that he used the FCC to extort concessions for the White House as part of the Paramount\/Skydance merger. That\u2019s the dangerous signal of a rule like the one Maryland drapes itself in here: refusing to investigate based on public statements and actions is a tailor-made excuse to alleviate public officials from all of their professional obligations. <\/p>\n

Disciplinary authorities exist because the profession, supposedly, holds itself to higher standards than the bare minimum of avoiding criminal conduct. They\u2019re supposed to have a broader portfolio and address conduct that may not end up in court but still presents a risk to the public. A federal official threatening to use his regulatory authority to silence political speech would seem to fall squarely within that wheelhouse.<\/p>\n

Most of the people desecrating the moral foundation of this country will never face any accountability. When Donald Trump exits the stage \u2014 if he exits the stage, which is a genuine question \u2014 he\u2019ll issue blanket pardons of all the masked thugs he sent to harass and kill in the cities that didn\u2019t vote for him. It\u2019s simply a redux of his January 6 pardons, only this time those same rioters have badges. He\u2019ll also shield those who issued the orders, up to and including himself, from prosecution. <\/p>\n

But some of the architects of this dumpster fire are attorneys. And our profession holds its members to higher standards. When this administration ends, those lawyers are going to look for other jobs and, as a profession that values the rule of law, it\u2019s imperative that we make sure to police our own here.<\/p>\n

So far, we\u2019re doing a really bad job.<\/p>\n

Earlier:<\/strong> Virginia State Bar Whistles Past Lindsey Halligan Ethics Complaint Claiming It\u2019s Not Their Job<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"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

The post Ethics Authority Won\u2019t Pursue Brendan Carr Charges Because Alleged Misconduct Was Too\u2026 Obvious?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Remember when FCC Chair Brendan Carr started publicly fronting that he\u2019d use his authority to punish Disney and ABC because Donald Trump didn\u2019t like Jimmy Kimmel making fun of him<\/a>? The Campaign for Accountability does and filed an ethics complaint<\/a> against Carr in both D.C. and Maryland back in September, alleging that his mob-like threats against ABC and its affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel\u2019s commentary violated multiple rules of professional conduct. <\/p>\n

In response, Maryland sent a polite letter explaining that they\u2019re declining to look into it because the complaint was based on \u2014 checks notes \u2014 publicly available information.<\/p>\n

\n

We have reviewed your complaint. It appears that the information you have provided is based on public websites, news reports, and social media posts. Maryland Rule 19-711(b)(2) states, \u201cBar Counsel . . . may decline a complaint submitted by an individual who provides information about an attorney derived from published news reports or third party sources where the complainant appears to have no personal knowledge of the information being submitted.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Folks\u2026 your professional gatekeepers in 2026!<\/p>\n

Last month, the Virginia State Bar decided to pass on an ethics complaint against phony U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. Manifesting Professional Responsibility Bartleby, Virginia looked at the ethics charges and replied \u201cI prefer not to<\/a>.\u201d Virginia claimed it couldn\u2019t enforce the standards of our profession because it needed to defer to the courts. In their defense, the courts do seem to be actively building a record of Halligan\u2019s deeds<\/a>. Maryland\u2019s going one better by claiming it won\u2019t consider ethical violation if they\u2019re too obviously verifiable. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe Maryland Bar Rules do not limit bar complaints only to those personally impacted by a lawyer\u2019s misconduct,\u201d Campaign for Accountability Executive Director Michelle Kuppersmith\u00a0said. \u201cAlthough their rules say they \u2018may\u2019 dismiss a complaint that draws on public accounts, it is fully within their discretion to choose otherwise. Clearly, the Bar was looking for whatever excuse it could find to duck its responsibility to hold its members accountable for misconduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

Carr\u2019s alleged misconduct wasn\u2019t some private negotiation gone wrong or an under-the-table ethical breach. The statements were made on a podcast<\/em>. He told to the world that ABC and its affiliates could \u201cdo this the easy way or the hard way\u201d and that there would be \u201cadditional work for the FCC\u201d if the network didn\u2019t take action against Kimmel. Even Ted Cruz \u2014 Ted Cruz!<\/em> \u2014 recognized these comments for what they were, calling them<\/a> \u201cright out of \u2018Goodfellas’\u201d and \u201cdangerous as hell.\u201d<\/p>\n

Maryland authorities could themselves<\/em> have \u201cpersonal knowledge of the information being submitted\u201d if they would just open up their Spotify. The complaint alleged violations of multiple rules, including D.C. Rule 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice), Rule 8.4(e) (implying an ability to improperly influence a government agency), and Rule 4.4(a) (using means that serve no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden a third person).<\/p>\n

Just because disciplinary officials can<\/em> decline to take the case, that doesn\u2019t mean they should<\/em>. A rule allowing bar counsel to decline complaints based on news reports might make sense in some contexts. No one wants the disciplinary authorities launching investigations every time someone reads a misleading headline about a lawyer. But the alleged misconduct here is the public statement itself<\/em>. There is no other avenue to acquire knowledge of these alleged violations than listening to the public statement.<\/p>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, Carr has raised other ethics questions<\/a> related to allegations that he used the FCC to extort concessions for the White House as part of the Paramount\/Skydance merger. That\u2019s the dangerous signal of a rule like the one Maryland drapes itself in here: refusing to investigate based on public statements and actions is a tailor-made excuse to alleviate public officials from all of their professional obligations. <\/p>\n

Disciplinary authorities exist because the profession, supposedly, holds itself to higher standards than the bare minimum of avoiding criminal conduct. They\u2019re supposed to have a broader portfolio and address conduct that may not end up in court but still presents a risk to the public. A federal official threatening to use his regulatory authority to silence political speech would seem to fall squarely within that wheelhouse.<\/p>\n

Most of the people desecrating the moral foundation of this country will never face any accountability. When Donald Trump exits the stage \u2014 if he exits the stage, which is a genuine question \u2014 he\u2019ll issue blanket pardons of all the masked thugs he sent to harass and kill in the cities that didn\u2019t vote for him. It\u2019s simply a redux of his January 6 pardons, only this time those same rioters have badges. He\u2019ll also shield those who issued the orders, up to and including himself, from prosecution. <\/p>\n

But some of the architects of this dumpster fire are attorneys. And our profession holds its members to higher standards. When this administration ends, those lawyers are going to look for other jobs and, as a profession that values the rule of law, it\u2019s imperative that we make sure to police our own here.<\/p>\n

So far, we\u2019re doing a really bad job.<\/p>\n

Earlier:<\/strong> Virginia State Bar Whistles Past Lindsey Halligan Ethics Complaint Claiming It\u2019s Not Their Job<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"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

The post Ethics Authority Won\u2019t Pursue Brendan Carr Charges Because Alleged Misconduct Was Too\u2026 Obvious?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Remember when FCC Chair Brendan Carr started publicly fronting that he\u2019d use his authority to punish Disney and ABC because Donald Trump didn\u2019t like Jimmy Kimmel making fun of him? The Campaign for Accountability does and filed an ethics complaint against Carr in both D.C. and Maryland back in September, alleging that his mob-like threats […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":141374,"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-141398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Headshot-300x200-HD1aWB.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141398","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=141398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141398\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/141374"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}