Imagine waking up to find your career under siege, not for wrongdoing, but for daring to serve a conservative administration. That’s the reality for Attorney General Pam Bondi and a host of other Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, now facing a barrage of ethics complaints from left-leaning groups.
The Daily Caller reported that Bondi and her colleagues, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, were targeted by a wave of accusations from progressive coalitions and law professors, alleging misconduct in their zealous defense of the administration’s policies.
Shortly after assuming her role, Bondi directed DOJ attorneys to advocate fiercely for the interests of the United States and the president.
This directive, meant to align legal efforts with executive priorities, has apparently ruffled feathers among certain activist circles. One wonders if the same fervor would apply to attorneys under a progressive banner.
In June 2025, a coalition of left-wing groups and academics lodged a formal complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of ethical breaches.
They pointed to internal decisions like the dismissal of a lawyer in a specific case and the halting of a prosecution against New York Mayor Eric Adams as evidence of overreach. Yet, the Florida Bar, having dismissed two prior complaints, reiterated it doesn’t pursue investigations against sitting federal officers.
This isn’t an isolated attack; it’s part of a broader campaign with at least a dozen similar ethics challenges filed against high-ranking conservative lawyers. Deputy AG Todd Blanche and others defending the administration in court are also in the crosshairs. It’s hard to ignore the pattern of targeting those aligned with a particular political stance.
Take Jeff Clark, a former DOJ official from the first Trump administration, who now faces the risk of losing his law license over allegations of dishonest advice tied to past events. His case, still unresolved with the D.C. Bar, exemplifies how these complaints can linger as professional albatrosses. Is this accountability, or a slow-motion career assassination?
The Legal Accountability Center (LAC), led by Michael Teter, has been particularly aggressive, filing complaints against three DOJ attorneys in August 2025 for allegedly misleading court statements about closing a federal bureau.
Teter, previously at the helm of the 65 Project, has a track record of pursuing Trump-aligned lawyers with gusto. “Creating a system of deterrence,” Teter once told CNN in 2022, revealing a mission that seems more about intimidation than justice.
Then there’s the Campaign for Accountability (CfA), backed by funds from networks like the New Venture Fund, which filed complaints against figures like Alina Habba and Emil Bove, a former DOJ official turned judge.
Their accusations range from actions tied to local officials’ arrests to dismissing high-profile indictments. Yet, bodies like the New York Attorney Grievance Committee have declined to investigate some of these claims, suggesting not all see merit in the allegations.
CfA even targeted FCC Chair Brennan Carr for comments about a late-night show, a move that feels like scraping the bottom of the grievance barrel.
As Jeff Clark retorted on X, “What the ‘Campaign for Accountability’ thinks is irrelevant. They are just outside observers.” His frustration echoes a broader sentiment that these complaints are less about ethics and more about political theater.
Not everyone is sitting idly by; America First Legal (AFL) struck back with a bar complaint against Teter himself in October 2025, alleging abuse of process to punish Trump-associated lawyers. This counter-move signals a growing resistance to what many see as lawfare—a weaponization of legal mechanisms for partisan ends. It’s a chess game, and conservatives are finally playing offense.
The 65 Project, another Teter-led outfit, has a history of filing complaints against Republican state attorneys general and Trump lawyers like John Eastman, whose license loss was upheld by a California court in July 2025. Yet, of nearly 80 complaints filed between 2022 and 2023, only three led to public disciplinary actions, per an analysis by The Center Square. That’s a batting average that raises questions about the substance behind the noise.
Democratic figures like California Senator Adam Schiff have also waded in, urging bar investigations into individuals like Bove, alongside complaints from bodies like the New York Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s a full-court press from multiple angles, yet the lack of traction in some cases hints at overreach. Are these efforts genuinely about ethics, or just a way to bog down opponents?
The stakes here go beyond individual careers; they touch on the very ability of federal lawyers to serve without fear of politically motivated reprisals. If every internal policy debate or courtroom argument risks an ethics complaint, who would dare take on such roles under a conservative administration? It’s a chilling effect, plain and simple.
Perhaps it’s time for conservative lawyers to seek licensure in states less prone to progressive influence, as some have suggested. The idea of red states easing admission rules to counter this trend isn’t far-fetched—it’s a pragmatic shield against a weaponized bar system. After all, if companies can flee politicized courts for friendlier jurisdictions, why not lawyers?
