September 3, 2025
Trump Attorneys’ Ethics Violations Require State Bar Action
Back in December 2020, as the nation unknowingly marched toward the infamous January 6th attack on the Capitol, then President Trump said, according to reporting in the book Peril, “Lawyers, I have nothing but lawyers that stop me on everything. I’m very embarrassed by my lawyers and the Justice Department. At least [Sydney Powell] is giving me a chance.” Trump was lamenting Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys’ efforts to stop him from appointing attorney Sydney Powell as special counsel to pursue an investigation in support of Trump’s fraudulent ‘Big Lie’ claim: Powell would eventually plead guilty to several misdemeanors in the Georgia election interference case.
Fast forward to 2025, and re-elected President Trump has appointed new leadership at the DOJ that is engaging in a purge of attorneys who may object to the administration’s malfeasance, with those who remain seeming to have taken heed of his infamous words. DOJ attorneys are not only doing nothing to stop the President from pursuing an all-out attack on the rule of law, they are enabling him by becoming active participants in the attack.
It would be impossible to detail every ethics violation by the Justice Department, actual or potential, here. However, one that sent shivers down the spine of the profession and should be the root of concern for the public is DOJ’s acquiescence to Trump administration executive orders and bullying extortion tactics attacking some of the nation’s largest and most prominent law firms and their lawyers. In short, the orders sought to suspend security clearances issued to the firms’ lawyers; restrict access to government buildings; ban the government from providing resources to these law firms, including compartmentalized information facilities; ban government hiring of law firm employees; and call for termination of government contracts for which law firms have been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.
While it seems most everyone in the law, media, and public have acknowledged the immoral and likely illegal attack on the profession, the entities charged with regulating the legal profession — state bar associations and their regulatory and disciplinary commissions — are sitting idly by without a peep.
High-Level Intimidation & Extortion
One such attack was against the Paul Weiss firm. The White House’s executive order threatened the firm, its partners, and its clients economically to the tune of billions of dollars. In response, the firm, along with many others fearing similar executive orders, quickly capitulated
The victims of this intimidation — high-powered, high-paid lawyers — promised to dismantle things like their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs with no showing that the programs ran afoul of any federal antidiscrimination law. Trump’s DOJ also asked that certain individual attorneys be disciplined. Paul Weiss was forced to besmirch one of its own attorneys who Trump claimed wrongly pushed for his prosecution in Manhattan even though in the end, Trump was criminally convicted. But it didn’t end there. The administration asked for an exchange of legal services for the “favor” of the administration allowing the law firms to continue to have access to the federal government in the interests of their clients. Paul Weiss (like several of the other targeted law firms) promised to perform tens of millions of dollars’ worth of pro-bono work for Trump for loosely defined “special projects.”
The message had been sent: even a large law firm with seemingly unlimited financial capability could not fight back against Trump and his new government attorneys without great risk both financially and personally. The reasons to be afraid were set. In response to this capitulation, the White House promised to continue targeting large law firms with these executive orders and it has. At least nine law firms agreed to terms with the Trump Administration to avoid executive orders.
Marc Elias, one of the attorneys targeted by the administration, estimates nine of the largest law firms targeted by the executive branch have pledged $940,000 of free legal services to Trump. Another had the estimate as much higher, from $40 million to $125 million. This is high-level bullying of the worst kind: government attorneys extorting private attorneys to do the bidding of the President for his personal gain.
It should be noted that not all law firms have capitulated. Four targeted law firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, have challenged the executive orders targeting them as a violation of the firm’s First Amendment speech, association, and petition rights, as well as their Fifth Amendment due process rights. At the district court level, each of these firms have been successful in their challenges.
Attorney Protestations
Despite an outcry for bar associations to speak up on the attack on the rule of law as far back as October 2023, it was only in August/September of 2024, that American Bar Association (ABA) President Mary Smith declared that “Lawyers Must Protect Democracy Now,” citing a “disappearing trust” in our democratic institutions. Properly, President Smith noted, “it is our oath to [actively] uphold justice and the Constitution,” but “many lawyers are not fully engaging with their ethical obligations . . . diminishing the profession’s role as keepers of democracy and the rule of law.”
Yet, more lawyers are taking notice now that the attacks on the rule of law are hitting the profession close to home. Attorneys see other attorneys engaging in conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice and the rule of law. At risk is the basic constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the early days of the second Trump administration, over 50 bar associations, mostly metropolitan and county bar associations, also condemned 'government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice' including the intimidation of law firms and lawyers. Also, over 1,300 former alumni of the DOJ, who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations, have condemned President Trump’s and the DOJ’s campaign of intimidation and retaliation against lawyers and law firms. They have called such executive branch actions, “an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law . . . undermin[ing] our legal system, the pursuit of justice, and our democracy.”
Generally speaking, it is the state bars that issue the state attorney licenses required to engage in the practice of law. Through their disciplinary arms, they also can monitor their licensed attorneys to make sure they stay true to their oath to “support [protect, uphold, or defend] the law, the Constitution of the United States and the constitution” of their state in which they are being admitted, continue to maintain the character and fitness to practice law, and steer clear of violating the many ethics rules which are supposed to guide the manner by which they practice law. This commonly happens when a complaint is filed with the proper disciplinary authority.
In this instance, a complaint would not be necessary because the whole world knows what happened as it is a matter of public record and the players are easily identifiable.
Ethical Basis for Bar Association Investigation and Discipline
It is incumbent upon state bar disciplinary bodies to investigate and punish the ethical violations associated with the law firm executive orders. Intimidation of the sort reflected in the potential enforcement of these orders is always a basis for disciplining an attorney. As one court noted, “[t]his type of conduct ‘has a dramatic impact on the public’s confidence in the integrity of the Bar.” Intimidation is commonly associated with cases involving harassment. In the case of the executive orders, the threat to use the coercive power of the government to curb core constitutional rights — including rights to speech, association, counsel, and due process itself —is much, much worse. The obvious nature of the misconduct is clear even under a cursory review of ethical rules.
Under the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4, entitled, “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession,” subpart (d) makes clear it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to, “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Subpart (e) goes further and makes it professional misconduct to “state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.” or “to achieve results [influence improperly a government agency or official] by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
In the Comments to Rule 8.4, the basis for an investigation and for hearings potentially resulting in discipline become more obvious. The comments state:
Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
Further, the Comment recognizes, “[l]awyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers.”
Both subparts of the rule and the Comment plainly address the conduct of any attorney who helped to develop or stands at the ready to enforce the executive orders.
The law firms that have capitulated to the administration, while victims of this intimidation, must also be held to account for the effect such capitulation may have on their ability to serve as zealous advocates for their clients and that may, in and of itself, be “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Law firms that have made deals with an administration that has pointedly criticized those firms for their work on behalf of certain clients or for their reliance on certain legal arguments or positions, create an inherent conflict of interest. It is reasonable to question the ability of lawyers within those firms to zealously represent the interests of their clients when they owe something to the government in return for what gangsters call “protection,” but more closely resembles extortion. Government attorneys who induce law firms and their attorneys to violate ethics rules violate Rule 8.4’s prohibition in subpart (a) of “induc[ing] another [attorney]” to “violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
This pattern of unethical intimidation and capitulation by government and private attorneys, respectively, warrant the time and attention of the disciplinary arms of state bar associations. To allow this behavior to go unexamined is an abdication of these bar associations’ critical role in ensuring the integrity of the profession and protecting the public.
Criminal Issues
In a recent review of the risks associated with attorneys preemptively acceding in the government shake-down of these large law firms, we are reminded that like so many other attorney ethical gaffs, they are often associated with criminal misconduct. In agreeing to provide hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars’ worth of pro bono representation in return for the Trump administration treating them favorably, the attorneys at these firms could be accused of “influenc[ing] improperly a government agency or official,” more commonly known as bribery. Federal and state criminal statutes apply to such criminal conduct when it involves a quid pro quo, extortion, or racketeering. Since most of the involved law firms are international law firms with offices in foreign countries, the criminal misconduct may violate international law too.
While state bar associations and disciplinary commissions do not typically bother themselves with the ethics of criminal conduct until the latter is adjudicated, this is a different situation from the typical case since government attorneys, the law enforcement here, are actual participants in the unethical, public misconduct. At a minimum, this is worthy of a public statement or opinion by the state bar associations. More appropriately, it is worthy of immediate investigation and the meting out of discipline from censure to those with minor roles in the misconduct to outright suspension and disbarment of the main actors who masterminded or executed the unethical and criminal schemes.
Conclusion
Federal workers, including federal prosecutors, are accountable to the people, not to politicians, which is why they swear to “support and defend the Constitution,” and not any specific President. And yet, the DOJ is attacking the rule of law by engaging in intimidation and extortion to consolidate President Trump’s power by targeting law firms and attorneys. The swiftness with which at least eight law firms preemptively settled with the administrations without an executive order issue against them shows the chilling effect these orders can have on the entire legal profession made up of over 1.3 million attorneys. This affects not only the law firms and millions of lawyers, but the millions of potential clients who might have business and need an independent, zealous lawyer to challenge some federal action.
Bar associations and attorney disciplinary boards should take heed as there is little anyone can do to stop bad-doers like government attorneys who control the levers of power over other attorneys who might challenge them in court. Bar associations are not so limited.
Bar associations can start their own investigations into the happenings involving federal prosecutors and other administration lawyers targeting law firms. Afterall, attorney disciplinarians have a duty to protect the public. They have subpoena power too. They can mete out discipline such as censure, suspension, and even disbarment. Context matters and the context here — attacks on the legal profession and the rule of law through government action — is very serious.
Indeed, ten senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee called on the New York Bar Association to investigate one Trump federal prosecutor for acts that can be called intimidation and extortion too under the rules referenced above. There are many more attorneys whose conduct should similarly be investigated.
Bar associations should not sit idly by. They have an important role to play in protecting the legal profession, the rule of law, the public, and our democracy. The time to act is now.
James “Jim” Saranteas is a practicing attorney of 25 years with experience. Jim is a recipient of Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Board of Governors prestigious St. Bellarmine Award in recognition for his distinguished contributions to the legal community. He continues to advocate on social issues as well as help law students with their advocacy skills.