DOJ Proposal Would Shield Its Lawyers from Ethics Accountability

Monday, in response to a proposed rule from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that would allow the attorney general to undermine state bar disciplinary investigations into DOJ attorneys, American Oversight submitted a public comment opposing the measure and urging the department to abandon the plan to undermine accountability for professional wrongdoing. 

DOJ’s proposed rule would give the attorney general sole discretion to effectively pause or block state bar investigations into ethical complaints against current and former DOJ lawyers, undermining longstanding systems of independent oversight and accountability. The department’s efforts come amid mounting concerns about the conduct of DOJ attorneys and increasing judicial skepticism of government representations in court, underscoring the need for independent ethical oversight.

“The DOJ is attempting to put its own lawyers above the ethical rules that govern every other attorney in this country,” said our Executive Director Chioma Chukwu. “This proposal would allow leadership at the department to shield misconduct from independent review, creating an accountability vacuum at precisely the moment when public trust in the DOJ is under significant strain. At a time when serious ethical questions about DOJ attorneys are mounting, the department’s proposal would ensure those questions never receive independent answers. No agency can be trusted to police itself behind closed doors — and the American people should not be asked to accept an arrangement that shields misconduct from scrutiny.”

Our comment explains that the proposal represents an extraordinary intrusion into the authority of state bar associations, which are responsible for regulating the practice of law and enforcing ethical standards. By allowing DOJ leadership to intervene in and delay those proceedings, the rule would significantly weaken the public’s ability to hold government attorneys accountable for misconduct.

The proposal comes amid a series of high-profile ethical concerns involving DOJ attorneys and follows significant attrition within the department’s internal oversight mechanisms. Recent cases include disciplinary charges against DOJ official Ed Martin and scrutiny surrounding Lindsey Halligan’s conduct tied to politically charged prosecutions — alongside our own complaint against then–Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove over his role in the quid pro quo dismissal of corruption charges against former New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Deferring accountability to DOJ presents significant risks. After we filed our complaint against Bove, New York authorities referred the matter to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, where no public action has been taken nearly a year later — a stark example of how accountability can stall when DOJ is left to police itself. Courts have also increasingly scrutinized — and in some cases rejected — DOJ representations in recent litigation, challenging the traditional “presumption of regularity,” which assumes government officials act lawfully and in good faith, and underscoring the risks of allowing the department to insulate its own attorneys from independent ethical review.

If adopted, DOJ’s rule would effectively allow the department to sideline independent investigations and leave the public with little recourse when government lawyers violate ethical standards. Our public comment urged DOJ to withdraw the proposal and instead commit to transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.