The multistate coalition submitted a comment letter on April 7 opposing the DOJ's proposed rule that would grant the department authority to review allegations against its own attorneys for ethics violations committed while performing federal duties. Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General could request state bar disciplinary authorities to suspend or displace investigative steps pending the DOJ's internal review, effectively giving federal officials veto power over state-level attorney discipline.
The attorneys general argue the rule undermines the traditional state authority to license and discipline attorneys within their jurisdictions. "U.S. DOJ is attempting to place itself and its attorneys above the law. Let's be clear: no one is above the law," Bonta said in a statement. "This sweeping assertion of authority threatens to limit state ethical rules, delay accountability, and undermine public trust in the legal system."
Under the proposed rule, the U.S. Attorney General would gain authority to direct DOJ attorneys not to participate in state bar interviews or provide non-public information during disciplinary investigations. While the rule's text suggests the Attorney General may only "request" suspension of state proceedings, the coalition argues it implies DOJ could actually displace or suspend such proceedings unilaterally, creating an enforceable federal mandate over state authority.
The opposition comes amid increased federal court criticism of DOJ's adherence to professional norms, making the timing particularly concerning for state officials. The coalition argues that all attorneys, including those employed by the federal government, must maintain state-level licenses and should remain subject to state disciplinary authority as an exercise of judicial power that has traditionally been vested in state courts.
"This rule is an abuse of authority and against the law," Bonta continued. "It is unethical for the federal government to have unchecked control over any attorney's conduct, and it remains critical for the states to retain their independent authority over attorneys licensed or practicing within their jurisdiction."
The coalition's legal challenge centers on several key arguments: the rule exceeds the Attorney General's rulemaking authority, contradicts federal statute 28 U.S.C. section 530(B) requiring federal attorneys to follow state ethics rules, and lacks procedural safeguards for fair review of misconduct allegations. The states also argue DOJ has failed to identify any instances where state disciplinary systems have been inadequate or improperly wielded.
The comment letter represents a significant federalism challenge to DOJ authority, with participating states including Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington joining California in opposition.