All in Everything on Fire
Greetings, folks, and I know, I know, I have been absent long enough that readers may wonder if “she blogs frequently at ethicking.com” (which is in various forms of my biography) is an 8.4(c) issue. (If I had readers who noticed, anyway.) As before, actual work plus the state of affairs has made blogging a bit spotty.
This is something I shouldn’t have to write about at all, but I guess this is where we are. I’ve gotten some reports of lawyers being threatened with disciplinary complaints for posting about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on social media. I will not link to or screen-shot the posts here; we’ve all seen them, and the content isn’t really what’s driving the threatened complaints (it’s the politics of the posters and those making the threats). We will see in coming weeks whether these threats actually come to fruition (as it’s easy for JoeNameBunchanumbers to send a DM or leave a nasty message on a law firm voicemail), but in the meantime, I will reiterate:
No, it is not professional misconduct for a lawyer to say mean things about nearly anyone (or nice things about nearly anyone, for that matter) on the Internet.
Since I last wrote about this subject, my nerd association put out a statement condemning the current administration’s attack on lawyers., in response to executive orders purporting to revoke security clearances and restrict lawyers’ ability to practice, against Covington & Burling, but Perkins Coie. After the APRL statement, the administration issued a similar order against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul, Weiss).
Today, however, the administration announced that Paul, Weiss has capitulated to its demands.
We learned this afternoon that several Democratic members of the US Senate filed a Request for Disciplinary Investigation with the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin.
So I’ve added a tag to my blog, “Everything on Fire.” It may be partially self-explanatory, but I am adding it to blog entries that discuss the contempt for the rule of law held by the current federal administration, among others. I’ve gone back and tagged a few prior entries as well. I am not sure these entries will always have a specific legal ethics bent (they will, at least, touch on lawyers and law practice), but the rule of law is important and this is my blog and at least in this virtual space, I can do what I want.
Today’s entry concerns the president doing what he wants, except instead of his blog, it’s the whole country, and he’s doing a lot of things he’s not supposed to be doing. This month, he has taking retributive action against his perceived rivals, including lawyers who have sparred with him and his administration (current and past).A couple of weeks ago, he at least purported to revoke the security clearances of lawyers Mark Zaid and Norm Eisen, without any real justification or due process.
Earlier this week, and mostly along party lines, the Senate confirmed Pam Bondi to serve as the United State Attorney General.
You will note that this job is not called “Attorney General of the President,” and at least for now, the Department of Justice’s website includes this definition:
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.
Shortly after she was confirmed, Bondi issued a memo in which she seems to have announced that the Department of Justice is actually there to represent the President and his interests.
Edward Martin, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, was present outside the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and later defended three people charged with crimes related to the insurrection. The case against one of his clients, Joseph Padilla, was still ongoing when Trump took office and pardoned nearly everyone involved in the riots.
