Battling ‘barfare’: DOJ launches plan to take down weaponization of bar associations
Long have government and even private organizations been weaponized against conservatives. And Republicans. And President Trump.
These agendas also were set up to use the powers of various bar associations to attack those targeted by leftists. The schemes were institutionalized under Barack Obama’s regime in Washington and reached full power under Joe Biden’s White House.
Lawyers who chose to work with Trump and others among the outcast class were threatened, investigated and even punished for simply doing what a lawyer is obligated, legally and morally, to do: represent a client’s interests.
It’s because Democrats and other leftists would file bar association complaints, creatively alleging that to represent a Republican or a Republican ideology amounted to unprofessional behavior.
A report by Ben Weingarten at the Federalist explains he warned about “Barfare” for RealClearInvestigations earlier.
“By making life hell for conservative counselors by hitting them with such complaints, the idea is to pick such legal talent off the playing field — while spooking others who might otherwise enter it — and thereby eliminate the left’s legal opposition,” he said.
The DOJ now has explained, “This unprecedented weaponization of the state bar complaint process risks chilling the zealous advocacy by department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers.”
Its new plan would provide that the attorney general has the right to intervene in state bar complaints.
The report said, “Should a third party lodge a bar complaint against such a lawyer alleging that he committed ethical violations while conducting federal work, or should disciplinary authorities ‘open an investigation into such allegations’ absent a complaint, the U.S. AG would have a ‘right of first review’ — to examine the case and suspend disciplinary investigations or proceedings pending the conclusion of her examination.”
The report said, “Should bar authorities refuse to comply, the department could then ‘take appropriate action to prevent’ such interference.”
The report explained that could “deter politically driven complaints and fishing expeditions by raising their costs. Challengers would risk an adverse Justice Department finding; the proposed rule suggests that bar authorities generally give weight to the department’s work. Meanwhile, such reviews could significantly draw out or leave bogus disciplinary processes in limbo — thwarting those seeking to punish conservative lawyers unchecked.”
The DOJ explained the need: “Political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process” against senior officials.
The regulation will cover lawyers who did work for the DOJ, and then moved on.
One recent case created by the legal disciplinarians in Washington involves U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, who was accused of ethics violations.
Martin was described as a conservative stalwart “long loathed by the left.”
He apparently probed Georgetown Law School for allegedly pushing DEI, even though those agendas violate equal protection laws and it was banned by Trump if an institution takes federal money.
Further, Martin questioned the Washington law association’s motivations, “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.”
The local Washington disciplinarians also want to punish another conservative lawyer for a draft letter regarding the 2020 election that never was sent.