DOJ Seeks Power To Delay State Bar Probes Of Federal Prosecutors
The Justice Department this week proposed a rule that would allow the attorney general to pause or delay state bar investigations into federal prosecutors, a change that could limit state oversight of Justice Department lawyers.
Under the proposal, the attorney general would review ethics complaints against DOJ attorneys and could temporarily halt state bar proceedings while the department conducts its own review. The department says the move would prevent harassment and conflicting standards; critics say it is a power grab that would shield federal lawyers from independent scrutiny. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and more than 350 former DOJ officials have publicly opposed the rule, and lawmakers and watchdogs warned it would undercut accountability.
The episode traces back to the department's tumultuous reshaping after the January 2025 inauguration, when more than a dozen prosecutors who worked on cases involving the former president were fired. Pam Bondi took over as attorney general in February 2025 and made several staffing and policy changes, including hiring Ed Martin as pardon attorney in May 2025. Ethics complaints against Bondi and Martin began appearing in mid-2025 and continued into 2026, and Justice Department officials have called many of the state bar grievances partisan attacks. The McDade-Murtha Amendment, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530B, explicitly says federal government lawyers are subject to state laws and rules governing attorneys, a rule critics say the proposal would effectively sideline.
Coverage has shifted from treating the proposal as an internal procedural change to framing it as a major legal and political fight over oversight. Earlier coverage focused on DOJ claims of inconsistent state rules; newer reporting highlights broad opposition from state officials, former prosecutors, and public-interest groups, and notes that the department already conducts internal reviews. The Office of Professional Responsibility opened more than 1,000 professional-misconduct matters in fiscal 2023, underscoring that internal mechanisms exist alongside bar complaints.
📊 Relevant Data
The McDade-Murtha Amendment, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530B, states that an attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
28 USC 530B: Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government — U.S. Code
The McDade-Murtha Amendment was enacted in 1998 in response to Department of Justice claims that federal prosecutors were exempt from certain state ethics rules, such as restrictions on contacting represented parties during investigations.
Ethical Standards for Justice Department Attorneys — Congressional Research Service
In fiscal year 2023, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility received 1,023 new matters involving allegations of professional misconduct by DOJ attorneys, though these are internal reviews separate from state bar complaints.
Office of Professional Responsibility Annual Report 2023 — U.S. Department of Justice
📌 Key Facts
- DOJ proposed a rule allowing the attorney general to request first review of state bar complaints against current and former DOJ attorneys for work done at the department.
- Department officials justify the change as a response to what they call politically motivated bar complaints, citing cases involving Pam Bondi and Ed Martin.
- Legal ethics scholars say the proposal appears to conflict with the McDade-Murtha Amendment, which subjects federal prosecutors to state ethics rules, and could face legal challenge.
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time