Posted on 03/13/2026 6:30:15 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Federal lawyers cannot be held hostage by a lawfare apparatus that threatens their destruction for daring to represent GOP administrations.
On Tuesday, word came that the legal disciplinary authority in Washington, D.C., was charging U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin with ethics violations, kicking off proceedings that could result in penalties up to and including disbarment.
Martin himself had questioned that very Disciplinary Counsel, Hamilton P. Fox III, the former head of the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, about whether his tribunal was operating politically in correspondence from February 2025. Martin wrote a letter to Fox then, suggesting that the Democrat-dominated panel might be targeting those with opposing viewpoints with unmerited ethics probes and seeking information to ascertain whether it was true. On Tuesday, word came that the legal disciplinary authority in Washington, D.C., was charging U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin with ethics violations, kicking off proceedings that could result in penalties up to and including disbarment.
In so doing, it might have just helped make the case for the action the Trump Justice Department recently initiated to begin to combat the weaponization of such bar disciplinary tribunals — namely, against conservatives.
The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility alleges that while serving as U.S. attorney last year, Martin — a conservative stalwart long loathed by the left — violated local rules of legal conduct in probing Georgetown Law School for its alleged continued promotion of DEI in its curriculum, and refusing to hire those affiliated with the school until it purged DEI accordingly.
“Lawfare/Barfare is alive & well,” said Jeff Clark, the recently departed chief Trump administration regulatory officer. “Apparently, DC’s Disciplinary Counsel cares not that 1) DEI is an unconstitutional violation of equal...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Barffare -—— heh, heh, heh...
good, time to focus on the American ‘British Accreditation Regency’ BAR Association.
and, restore the original 13th amendment while your at it.
It's the accreditation system is where we should start.
RIP Barefoot Bob.
I am not a lawyer, but just who gave this entity (bar association) this much power, or how did they gain it? The red states ought to take over everything they do vis-a-vis accreditation, and whatever else they do, and tell them to eff off.
how many did they kill to keep it?
The bar is a private organization that answers to no one but the liberals that run it....
Congress establishes the procedural rules for federal courts, which control things like admission to practice. Those rules themselves delegate that authority to the individual district courts. State courts control admissions to practice in each state. That is NOT the same as belonging to a bar association, which is voluntary. So it is actually the courts that have the power.
However, very often, those courts will delegate to those private bar associations the management of investigations and complaints. Or at least the "first crack" at them. They then send their findings and recommendations to the relevant court, which makes the ultimate decision on claims of misconduct and punishment.
As a practical matter, even though those bar associations don't have the power to take away a license to practice, the investigatory process and recommendations are something no lawyer wants to face.
Nobody can do anything about it because they are afraid of being called racist by the news media.
I am wondering why Bondi keeps him there. He is a Democrat who hates Martin and has stalled other cases.
This article contains important information, buried in sentence structures so convoluted it it a chore to work out the meaning of a given paragraph—and I’ve taken a grad ConLaw class.
Having worked with many educated professionals, I call this sort of writing “typing up a thought process” or “a brain dump.” Yes, you are highly knowledgeable about this topic; but no, you have not communicated clearly to readers who do not know what you know—If they did, they wouldn’t need your article.
I hope this author will seek out a good editor, or at least run a few pages through Grammarly to get a clearer sense of how to feature the most important point of a passage, followed by the supporting points.
I often use Grok to deconvolute articles and summarize videos. Tell me what you think.
The article from The Federalist (published March 12, 2026, by Ben Weingarten) argues that the Trump administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) is finally countering what it portrays as the politically weaponized and corrupt D.C. Bar Association, which has allegedly targeted conservative and Trump-aligned lawyers through disciplinary actions (termed "Barfare" or lawfare).
Key development highlighted: On February 26, 2026, the Trump DOJ proposed a new rule (published in the Federal Register on March 5) to protect current and former DOJ attorneys from politically motivated state/local bar complaints. The rule would give the Attorney General (Pam Bondi at the time) the "right of first review" over such complaints or investigations related to official federal duties. This allows the AG to request suspension of bar proceedings pending DOJ review and potentially intervene further if needed to prevent interference.
Background and allegations: The piece claims the D.C. Bar has been weaponizing its disciplinary process against conservatives, often ignoring the federal/official context of their actions, to deter representation of Republican causes or administrations. It cites a pattern of "frivolous" or partisan complaints that threaten lawyers' careers and chill zealous advocacy, risking separation of powers by letting local bars police executive branch actions.
Specific examples:
Broader implications: The proposal aims to deter frivolous complaints but isn't full preemption (bars could resume after review), potentially leaving lawyers in limbo. It warns of constitutional risks if local bars continue targeting federal officials for executive actions.
The piece has a strongly conservative perspective, framing the D.C. Bar as corrupt/left-leaning and the DOJ rule as a necessary defense against weaponization, while portraying targeted lawyers as acting properly in official roles.
That is certainly much clearer. It might have worked for the author to try an AI version such as this for a good ordering of the topic and then add his own edits to make it “his”!
Thanks for the explanation.
So, as long as we have courts that are corrupt, wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, especially in DC (with people like Boasberg, Chutkan, Sullivan, et al), this “barfare” will continue.
I suppose at the federal level, CJ Roberts can do something in terms of taking back the power, but I’m not expecting this to happen. As I said earlier, the red states ought to completely remove these people from the accreditation process.
Yes, Weingarten’s article was wordy and heavy going at times. Took some mental effort to get to his points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.