March 25, 2026 – Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, wants the first chance to review claims that her Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys committed ethics violations.

The proposed rule under her signature in the March 5 Federal Register would “establish a process for reviewing bar complaints and allegations against its attorneys” within 28 C.F.R. Part 77.

Although the proposed rules are exempt from the usual notice and comment requirements, DOJ requested public comments, which are due by April 6 on www.regulations.gov.

Part 77 responded to 28 U.S.C. section 530B, which requires government attorneys to be “subject to [s]tate laws and rules, and local [f]ederal court rules, governing attorneys in each [s]tate where such attorney engages in the attorney’s duties.”

‘Right to Review … in the First Instance’

The brief proposed rule would grant the attorney general “the right to review the allegations in the first instance,” whether knowledge of the alleged violation came from DOJ or from an outside source.

The attorney general could either conduct the initial review or direct it to the applicable state bar disciplinary authority.

If the attorney general chooses to review the ethics violation, the office “shall request that the bar disciplinary authorities suspend any parallel investigations or disciplinary proceedings until the completion of the review.”

Although the state disciplinary authority could continue its investigation – “request” is not a command – “the [DOJ] shall take appropriate action … to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the [a]ttorney [g]eneral’s review.”

As the notice for proposed rulemaking (NOPR) explains, the state disciplinary authority won’t get “any non-public information” until after the DOJ review.

Once the attorney general has completed review, the office will notify the state disciplinary authority.

If the attorney general chose to investigate, the state disciplinary authority would receive the results of the DOJ investigation. This helps state authorities who have limited resources, the NOPR said.

The state disciplinary authority then remains free to complete its investigation and decide punishment.

A state’s disciplinary authority’s range of discipline exceeds the DOJ’s, the NOPR explains. The DOJ can only reprimand, suspend, or fire. The disciplinary authority “may suspend or revoke an attorney’s license.”

Under the proposed rule, the government attorney has a choice, the NOPR describes.

If the attorney notifies the DOJ of a state bar complaint and cooperates with the DOJ investigation, the DOJ under the proposed rule may investigate first.

But, if the attorney doesn’t cooperate with the DOJ investigation, the attorney general will close its review and hand it over to the state, the NOPR explains.

The rule acts similarly to a choice of venue.

No Change

The proposed rule makes no practical change in how these ethics investigations proceed, the NOPR states.

The DOJ describes its duty in 28 C.F.R. section 77.1(a) “to ensur[e] that its attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest ethical standards.”

Ethics complaints at the DOJ begin at the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which refers a “clear and unambiguous” violation to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU) for investigation.

The PMRU investigates and reports its recommendations to the OPR, which then acts and communicates to the state disciplinary authority, the NOPR explains.

If the Office of Inspector General (OIG) finds an attorney violation, the OIG will refer any attorney ethics matter to the PMRU, which makes a recommendation to the OPR for resolution, and then to the state disciplinary authority.

The proposed rule would allow the OPR’s expertise to ensure “consistent application of the [s]tate ethics rules.”

The “OPR has 50 years of experience in evaluating allegations of professional misconduct against [DOJ] attorneys,” the NOPR said. “It is intimately familiar with all [s]tate rules of professional conduct and how they apply to the work of [DOJ] attorneys.”

State rules and discipline will still apply to DOJ attorneys, the NOPR emphasizes.

“For example, a [s]tate ethics rule that prohibits attorneys from deceiving the court would apply to both [DOJ] attorneys and non-[DOJ] attorneys alike, and it would prohibit both [DOJ] attorneys and non-[DOJ] attorneys from making deceptive statements to the court.”

The OPR is usually the first to know about an alleged ethics violation, the NOPR explained.

When a state bar receives a complaint about a DOJ attorney, “most [s]tate bars refrain from taking further action until [the] OPR is able to complete the investigation so that the bar has a full account, through [the] OPR’s report of investigation, of the evidence and [the] OPR’s analysis, as well as the PMRU’s conclusions.”

When a state disciplinary authority refers the complaint to the OPR, the NOPR said, “most [s]tate bars do not take additional action.”

Nationwide Access

The attorney general leads the DOJ upon appointment by the president and advice and consent of the Senate.^[1] This top attorney advises on legal questions as requested by the president and executive department heads.^[2]

“The [a]ttorney [g]eneral has the authority to send [DOJ] officers ‘to any [s]tate or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a [s]tate, or to attend to any other interest of the United States,’” said the NOPR, quoting 28 U.S.C. section 517.

Similarly, DOJ “attorneys are not required to be licensed in each [s]tate or jurisdiction in which they practice – and are not liable for the unlicensed practice of law when they do so – because the [DOJ’s] officers and agents do not need approval from a [s]tate … to discharge their [f]ederal responsibilities,” the NOPR explains.

Nationwide duties require access to all courts.

But state ethics disciplinary panels, the NOPR alleges, have fallen prey to “political activists” who have “weaponized” the process – and state authorities are willing “to give credence to such complaints,” the NOPR said.

“Recently, for example, certain [s]tate bar disciplinary authorities have undertaken investigations of [DOJ] attorneys without notifying and coordinating with OPR.”

Such unbridled actions, the NOPR concludes, could chill the necessary zealous advocacy DOJ attorneys must practice to defend the United States, or “impede an unpopular initiative.”

In its regulatory certifications, the DOJ “determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.”

“The proposed rule would merely better reflect the existing balance of responsibilities between [s]tate bar authorities and the [DOJ].”

Endnotes

[1] 28 U.S.C. section 503. ↩

[2] 28 U.S.C. section 511 (president); 28 U.S.C. section 512 (executive department heads). ↩