Trump administration lawyers have crossed ethical lines that would sink any other practitioner.
They’ve lied to courts repeatedly. They’ve supported others lying under oath. They’re driving career prosecutors out of work but turning the Justice Department into a vector for corrupt dealmaking. They tried to launch a criminal probe of a woman they killed even though you can’t file criminal charges against a dead person. And they go out in public to cheer on violent threats against judges. Politico collected over 2,300 federal court decisions where law enforcement illegally detained people… there are lawyers behind each of these.
Some of these incidents — in a rational world — would incur criminal liability. But in a post-Trump v. United States world, the executive branch enjoys actual or practical absolute immunity for all manner of lawlessness. And that’s before Trump inevitably pardons the whole legal team on his way out the door. Qualified immunity and a legal system actively hostile to civil liability for constitutional violations will protect them from everything else.
Ready for What’s Next: 5 Ways to Strengthen Economic Resilience
Get five practical tips to spot cash flow red flags early, speed up payments, track spending in real time, and build stronger client trust through clear, transparent billing—download the ebook.
There’s only one avenue for realistically holding any of these lawyers accountable. State licensing authorities don’t have to respect contrived immunities or federal pardons. The only concern of professional licensing is fitness to practice the profession. Trump’s lawyers are engaged in professional misconduct at scale and authorities don’t have to let them keep their licenses.
As attorneys, we all have an obligation to the profession and the public to make sure these people never work as lawyers again.
So far, bar authorities have whiffed on their duties.
Lindsey Halligan, the insurance lawyer who, until recently, pretended to be the “Interim” U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, kept signing documents after a judge pointed out that she had no legal authority. When a second judge asked why she continued to defy the court’s orders, Halligan’s bosses, AG Pam Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche, responded in a filing filled with more vitriol than legal support. A professional ethics watchdog flagged Halligan’s behavior for bar authorities in Virginia who brushed it off as none of their business. Even the judge who called out Halligan refused to refer her for discipline noting her “inexperience.”
Transform Legal Reasoning Into Business-Ready Results With General AI
Protégé™ General AI is fundamentally changing how legal professionals use AI in their everyday practice.
Not for nothing, but the duty of competence makes taking on a legal task without sufficient expertise an ethical violation all of its own! Rather than letting her off the hook, her inexperience should just get added to the heap of potential ethical violations stemming from turning in an indictment without running it by the grand jury and discussing confidential aspects of an ongoing investigation with a reporter in a failed effort to craft a PR narrative. “Whether criminal indictments were obtained through material misrepresentations of fact and done for political purposes falls within the authority of the court to determine and not this office,” Virginia’s last line of defense against professional misconduct wrote at the time.
That is, to put it charitably, complete horseshit. Bar authorities exist precisely because unethical conduct often doesn’t rise to the level of court intervention. The whole point of professional discipline is to address behavior that renders someone unfit to practice law. It’s not about criminality, it’s about fitness to practice. Should the public trust a lawyer who lied to a court in an attempt to ramrod a federal criminal case against someone on the president’s enemies list?
Judge James Boasberg found “probable cause” to hold the government in criminal contempt after DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign told him deportation flights weren’t taking off when they absolutely were. Ensign later had to admit in another case that the government falsely claimed Guatemalan children’s parents had requested their return when, in fact, “none of these children’s parents had asked for them to be sent back.” It’s hard to believe this amounts to Ensign’s own incompetence either. Before securing a lifetime appointment to the Third Circuit, Emil Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers to tell courts “fuck you,” if judges tried to put the brakes on illegal deportations. DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni says he was pressured to make false assertions to courts and was fired for refusing to lie. Text messages show DOJ lawyers reacting to the Ensign’s representations to the court with “Oh shit. That was just not true.“
Model Rule 3.3 could not be clearer: “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.” Model Rule 8.4 prohibits conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” and conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” If these allegations are remotely true, these aren’t even particularly close calls. If the behavior is already in spitting distance of a judge putting a lawyer in a jail cell, then it’s more than enough to suspend licenses.
Immediately after ICE agents shot and point blank killed VA nurse Alex Pretti, Pam Bondi wrote Minnesota governor Tim Walz representing that the administration would remove its agents — who are, to date, responsible for two of the three total homicides in the state of Minnesota in 2026 — if Minnesota agreed to hand over voter information to the federal government in violation of applicable law. Using a prosecutorial office to extort officials to break state laws seems, well, not particularly ethical.
This is assembly line professional misconduct. If lying to federal judges about your premediated plan to ignore court orders doesn’t warrant discipline, what does? If using the threat of criminal charges or law enforcement action to exact political concessions doesn’t cross the line, where exactly is the line? There are more than enough rules to cite. Competence, candor, special prosecutorial duties, extrajudicial communications, general misconduct… spin the wheel and throw a dart and a serious disciplinary counsel should find ample evidence to back an investigation.
Even with a well-greased revolving door between government service and lucrative private sector work, one might think law firms would hesitate to hitch their reputations to lawyers involved in public misconduct. But if 2025 taught us anything, it’s that there will be employers willing to compromise their principles to appease the people backing this administration. The only guarantee that these people face any accountability instead of sliding into cushy, lucrative positions disgracing the legal profession from a corner office involves professional discipline. Local bars and disciplinary authorities must treat these cases as what they are: serious, documented violations of core ethical duties.
If state bar authorities lack the courage to enforce professional rules, they should be replaced. The profession belongs to us. Protecting its reputation from those dragging it through the mud is on us, or it’s on no one. If a jurisdiction doesn’t give members a path to replace disciplinary authorities falling down on the job, then launch campaigns to oust whoever does.
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. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.