{"id":157850,"date":"2026-07-22T16:36:33","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T00:36:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/22\/over-500-former-doj-lawyers-explain-how-they-somehow-managed-jobs-without-massive-ethical-violations\/"},"modified":"2026-07-22T16:36:33","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T00:36:33","slug":"over-500-former-doj-lawyers-explain-how-they-somehow-managed-jobs-without-massive-ethical-violations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/22\/over-500-former-doj-lawyers-explain-how-they-somehow-managed-jobs-without-massive-ethical-violations\/","title":{"rendered":"Over 500 Former DOJ Lawyers Explain How They *Somehow* Managed Jobs Without Massive Ethical Violations"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Justice Department\u2019s lawsuit against the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel<\/a> rests on the claim that lawyers working for the federal government cannot be held to the same rules of legal ethics and professional responsibility that bind every other attorney\u2019s license. According to the suit, allowing D.C.\u2019s professional licensing authorities to potentially sanction or disbar government lawyers from practicing in the District after breaching ethical rules \u201cchills\u201d those lawyers from giving candid legal advice. For example, how could the DOJ even function<\/em> if an oil spill lawyer had to worry about sanctions over counseling the president to use knowingly false election fraud claims to pull off a coup<\/a>?<\/p>\n

More than 500 former DOJ attorneys just filed an amicus brief<\/a> to call bullshit. The signatories run the gamut from an Acting Attorney General, an Inspector General, United States Attorneys from across the nation, alums of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, to Ty Cobb. There are career people and political people, from Republican administrations and Democratic ones, some with decades in the building.<\/p>\n

Their collective take is that they never experienced any chill, based on a novel strategy called \u201cbeing ethical.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

At no point did the possibility of investigation for violating those rules inhibit our ability to represent or advise the United States or its officials. On the contrary, that possibility enhanced our credibility, because the principals we advised, and the judges and juries before whom we appeared, knew that we adhered to the same ethical standards that apply to all attorneys.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Government lawyers once enjoyed the professional advantage of a presumption of regularity \u2014 a judge-bestowed benefit of the doubt rooted in the understanding that they are bound by the same<\/em> ethical rules. The current DOJ argues that government lawyers need the flexibility to use their law licenses to break the rules.<\/p>\n

And it doesn\u2019t take much digging to understand why the DOJ wants to keep that presumption while dispensing with its foundation. Just Security has documented<\/a> at least 740 immigration cases in which a court found or the government conceded noncompliance with court orders, plus 34 more<\/a> outside the immigration habeas<\/em> context where courts flagged compliance problems. A judge in the Northern District of Illinois described herself as \u201cincredibly shocked\u201d by grand jury transcripts in the Broadview protester prosecutions, which the U.S. Attorney dropped<\/a> after conceding the case was tainted. A judge in Middle Tennessee dismissed the Abrego Garcia indictment as vindictive and selective<\/a>, finding \u201can abuse of prosecuting power.\u201d And another judge called out the administration<\/a> for indulging a scheme where Trump would settle with himself to create a January 6 slush fund with taxpayer money.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s all before we get into senior leadership trying to play semantic games with illegally sending people to an El Salvadoran slave camp<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As these likely ethical breaches mount up, it\u2019s increasingly clear that professional discipline is the only repercussion these lawyers may face<\/a> for selling out their obligations. Trump has reportedly claimed he plans to pardon everyone involved in his regime. But licensing authorities are not concerned with pardons \u2014 their responsibility is to protect the public from lawyers that breach the ethical code.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s lawyers seem to understand this, which is why they\u2019re waging an all-out assault on the idea that they might not breezily walk through the revolving door back into Biglaw after spending four years lying to the courts.<\/p>\n

Pam Bondi proposed a new rule<\/a> seizing sole authority to decide if a government lawyer broke ethical rules \u2014 now or during past service. Not only does this rule not make sense \u2014 why should a jurisdiction allow someone to practice law within its borders without being able to enforce ethical standards? \u2014 it explicitly violates federal law. The McDade-Murtha Amendment of 1998 guaranteed jurisdiction for local bar authorities to regulate government lawyers committing misconduct in their borders. Congress passed that law precisely because they had already heard the argument that the Attorney General should preempt state ethics rules, and they didn\u2019t buy it then either.<\/p>\n

The DOJ claims it\u2019s the proper judge of attorney misconduct, even if that misconduct is being ordered straight from the top. The Department\u2019s record proves this is a lie.<\/p>\n

As the amicus brief notes, from fiscal 2015 through 2024, the Professional Misconduct Review Unit authorized the Office of Professional Responsibility to refer at least 45 misconduct findings to state bars. In fiscal 2025, with federal judges producing misconduct findings at a rate nobody has seen before, PMRU authorized zero. Trump\u2019s DOJ also fired the head of OPR and the Director of the Departmental Ethics Office \u2014 not exactly making its case to shoulder more authority for policing responsibility.<\/p>\n

The Department dismantled a time-honored infrastructure of internal accountability and then told us that external accountability is redundant.<\/p>\n

And in the meantime, the DOJ is suing D.C. for enforcing its legal rights to govern its lawyers \u2014 sending a signal to every other jurisdiction that they could face the same fate. Which is, in fact, \u201cchilling.\u201d<\/p>\n

Five hundred and fifty-four former DOJ lawyers explained how they performed some of the hardest legal work in the country under rules that applied to everyone, and that the rules made them better at it. The Department\u2019s position is that this is impossible.<\/p>\n

In the administration\u2019s defense, having to act ethically probably is impossible for them.<\/p>\n

(Full brief and signatory list on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Sues D.C. Bar For Holding Trump Lawyers To Ethical Rules<\/a>
DOJ Proposes Rule Blocking State Bars From Investigating Ethical Violations By Government Lawyers<\/a>
Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump\u2019s Lawyers<\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Over 500 Former DOJ Lawyers Explain How They *Somehow* Managed Jobs Without Massive Ethical Violations<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

The Justice Department\u2019s lawsuit against the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel<\/a> rests on the claim that lawyers working for the federal government cannot be held to the same rules of legal ethics and professional responsibility that bind every other attorney\u2019s license. According to the suit, allowing D.C.\u2019s professional licensing authorities to potentially sanction or disbar government lawyers from practicing in the District after breaching ethical rules \u201cchills\u201d those lawyers from giving candid legal advice. For example, how could the DOJ even function<\/em> if an oil spill lawyer had to worry about sanctions over counseling the president to use knowingly false election fraud claims to pull off a coup<\/a>?<\/p>\n

More than 500 former DOJ attorneys just filed an amicus brief<\/a> to call bullshit. The signatories run the gamut from an Acting Attorney General, an Inspector General, United States Attorneys from across the nation, alums of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, to Ty Cobb. There are career people and political people, from Republican administrations and Democratic ones, some with decades in the building.<\/p>\n

Their collective take is that they never experienced any chill, based on a novel strategy called \u201cbeing ethical.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

At no point did the possibility of investigation for violating those rules inhibit our ability to represent or advise the United States or its officials. On the contrary, that possibility enhanced our credibility, because the principals we advised, and the judges and juries before whom we appeared, knew that we adhered to the same ethical standards that apply to all attorneys.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Government lawyers once enjoyed the professional advantage of a presumption of regularity \u2014 a judge-bestowed benefit of the doubt rooted in the understanding that they are bound by the same<\/em> ethical rules. The current DOJ argues that government lawyers need the flexibility to use their law licenses to break the rules.<\/p>\n

And it doesn\u2019t take much digging to understand why the DOJ wants to keep that presumption while dispensing with its foundation. Just Security has documented<\/a> at least 740 immigration cases in which a court found or the government conceded noncompliance with court orders, plus 34 more<\/a> outside the immigration habeas<\/em> context where courts flagged compliance problems. A judge in the Northern District of Illinois described herself as \u201cincredibly shocked\u201d by grand jury transcripts in the Broadview protester prosecutions, which the U.S. Attorney dropped<\/a> after conceding the case was tainted. A judge in Middle Tennessee dismissed the Abrego Garcia indictment as vindictive and selective<\/a>, finding \u201can abuse of prosecuting power.\u201d And another judge called out the administration<\/a> for indulging a scheme where Trump would settle with himself to create a January 6 slush fund with taxpayer money.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s all before we get into senior leadership trying to play semantic games with illegally sending people to an El Salvadoran slave camp<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As these likely ethical breaches mount up, it\u2019s increasingly clear that professional discipline is the only repercussion these lawyers may face<\/a> for selling out their obligations. Trump has reportedly claimed he plans to pardon everyone involved in his regime. But licensing authorities are not concerned with pardons \u2014 their responsibility is to protect the public from lawyers that breach the ethical code.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s lawyers seem to understand this, which is why they\u2019re waging an all-out assault on the idea that they might not breezily walk through the revolving door back into Biglaw after spending four years lying to the courts.<\/p>\n

Pam Bondi proposed a new rule<\/a> seizing sole authority to decide if a government lawyer broke ethical rules \u2014 now or during past service. Not only does this rule not make sense \u2014 why should a jurisdiction allow someone to practice law within its borders without being able to enforce ethical standards? \u2014 it explicitly violates federal law. The McDade-Murtha Amendment of 1998 guaranteed jurisdiction for local bar authorities to regulate government lawyers committing misconduct in their borders. Congress passed that law precisely because they had already heard the argument that the Attorney General should preempt state ethics rules, and they didn\u2019t buy it then either.<\/p>\n

The DOJ claims it\u2019s the proper judge of attorney misconduct, even if that misconduct is being ordered straight from the top. The Department\u2019s record proves this is a lie.<\/p>\n

As the amicus brief notes, from fiscal 2015 through 2024, the Professional Misconduct Review Unit authorized the Office of Professional Responsibility to refer at least 45 misconduct findings to state bars. In fiscal 2025, with federal judges producing misconduct findings at a rate nobody has seen before, PMRU authorized zero. Trump\u2019s DOJ also fired the head of OPR and the Director of the Departmental Ethics Office \u2014 not exactly making its case to shoulder more authority for policing responsibility.<\/p>\n

The Department dismantled a time-honored infrastructure of internal accountability and then told us that external accountability is redundant.<\/p>\n

And in the meantime, the DOJ is suing D.C. for enforcing its legal rights to govern its lawyers \u2014 sending a signal to every other jurisdiction that they could face the same fate. Which is, in fact, \u201cchilling.\u201d<\/p>\n

Five hundred and fifty-four former DOJ lawyers explained how they performed some of the hardest legal work in the country under rules that applied to everyone, and that the rules made them better at it. The Department\u2019s position is that this is impossible.<\/p>\n

In the administration\u2019s defense, having to act ethically probably is impossible for them.<\/p>\n

(Full brief and signatory list on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Sues D.C. Bar For Holding Trump Lawyers To Ethical Rules<\/a>
DOJ Proposes Rule Blocking State Bars From Investigating Ethical Violations By Government Lawyers<\/a>
Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump\u2019s Lawyers<\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Justice Department\u2019s lawsuit against the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel rests on the claim that lawyers working for the federal government cannot be held to the same rules of legal ethics and professional responsibility that bind every other attorney\u2019s license. According to the suit, allowing D.C.\u2019s professional licensing authorities to potentially sanction or disbar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":157851,"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-157850","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\/07\/Headshot-300x200-Q9qJjC.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157850","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=157850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157850\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157851"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}