Georgia Lawyers for the Rule of Law Opposes the DOJ Ethics Rule

TO: Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice [submission of public comment via Regulations.gov Docket No. OAG199]

FROM: Georgia Lawyers for the Rule of Law

Re: Opposition to Proposed Rule — Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations against Department of Justice Attorneys (91 FR 10780, Docket No. OAG199)

DATE: March 27, 2026

Georgia Lawyers for the Rule of Law is comprised of over eight hundred lawyers who stand for the rule of law. Our mission is to uphold the U.S. Constitution and our system of checks and balances devised by our Founders, which has served our country well for over two hundred and thirty-five years and should be vigorously defended.

We submit this public comment in strong opposition to the Department of Justice’s proposed rule, which would effectively exempt Department of Justice attorneys (D.O.J) from independent state bar oversight by giving the Attorney General a right of first review over any ethics complaint filed against a current or former Department attorney, and by authorizing the Department to take “appropriate action” to block state bar authorities that decline to suspend their own investigations.

As noted in the discussion section of Notice of Proposed Rule Making posted on March 6, 2026, in the Federal Register, the proposed rule would amend 28 CFR part 77 to establish a superseding process for the Department to review complaints and allegations filed against its attorneys with state bar disciplinary authorities.

We urge the Department of Justice to withdraw the proposed rule for the following reasons.

The proposed rule lacks legal authority and violates the McDade Amendment. Since the founding of the Republic, the licensing and regulation of lawyers has belonged to the States and the District of Columbia, which bear sole responsibility for attorney discipline. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 442 (1979). The McDade Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 530B, reaffirms that principle — expressly requiring that D.O.J. attorneys be bound by state ethical rules to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State. The proposed rule’s suggestion that Congress silently granted the Attorney General authority to supplant state enforcement mechanisms contradicts the statute’s plain text and purpose. By requiring state bars to suspend parallel investigations — and threatening unspecified consequences against bars that refuse — the proposed rule converts a statute, which was designed to ensure state oversight of D.O.J. lawyers, into a mechanism for the Department to shield its own attorneys from that very oversight.

The proposed rule creates an indefinite accountability gap. The proposal offers no deadlines applicable to the D.O.J. by which it must act, creating the possibility — if not the likelihood — of indefinite delay and non-enforcement. Without mandatory timelines, the Department’s “right of first review” becomes a mechanism for the prospect of permanent suspension of state bar investigations, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying conduct.

The Department cannot credibly investigate its own lawyers. The proposed rule would vest investigative authority in an Office of Professional Responsibility that reports to the very Attorney General who has explicitly directed D.O.J. attorneys to prioritize “zealous advocacy” above other professional obligations. Senior D.O.J. leadership has repeatedly pressured D.O.J. lawyers to follow directives even when doing so violated their ethical and professional obligations, and when affected lawyers attempted to comply with their ethical duties, they were terminated. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that an internal review process operating under these conditions will be impartial.

The proposed rule belies its own underlying purpose. Despite the Department’s framing, the proposed rule’s own language makes clear that its purpose is to prevent state disciplinary authorities from holding D.O.J. lawyers accountable for violations of their ethical duties. The D.O.J. contends that the mere act of filing an ethics complaint against a D.O.J. lawyer is an act of “weaponization” and that the willingness of disciplinary authorities to “give credence to such complaints” is “troubling.” Labeling independent bar oversight “weaponization” turns the rule of law on its head. State bar disciplinary systems exist precisely to provide independent accountability — including accountability for government lawyers exercising significant power over individuals’ lives and liberty.

No category of lawyer is above the law. The ethical framework that governs the American legal profession rests on the premise that all lawyers, including those employed by the federal government, are accountable to the independent disciplinary authority of the states in which they are licensed and practice. The proposed rule seeks to remove an entire category of lawyers — comprised of past and present D.O.J. attorneys — from the disciplinary requirements upon which the public has long relied to ensure that this nation’s lawyers comply with the highest standards of professional conduct. Such a departure from longstanding practice — one that replaces impartial, expert disciplinary bodies with the very institution whose lawyers stand accused — is not a matter of regulatory procedure. It strikes at the integrity of the legal system itself.

Georgia Lawyers for the Rule of Law submits these comments in opposition to the proposed rule, and we also call on state bar authorities, Congress, and the courts to reject any effort to place government lawyers beyond the reach of the independent disciplinary system that exists to protect the public. That system belongs to the states, and it is not the Department’s to dismantle.

Respectfully submitted,

Georgia Lawyers for the Rule of Law