Remember
when
FCC
Chair
Brendan
Carr
started
publicly
fronting
that
he’d
use
his
authority
to
punish
Disney
and
ABC
because
Donald
Trump
didn’t
like
Jimmy
Kimmel
making
fun
of
him?
The
Campaign
for
Accountability
does
and
filed
an
ethics
complaint
against
Carr
in
both
D.C.
and
Maryland
back
in
September,
alleging
that
his
mob-like
threats
against
ABC
and
its
affiliates
over
Jimmy
Kimmel’s
commentary
violated
multiple
rules
of
professional
conduct.
In
response,
Maryland
sent
a
polite
letter
explaining
that
they’re
declining
to
look
into
it
because
the
complaint
was
based
on
—
checks
notes
—
publicly
available
information.
We
have
reviewed
your
complaint.
It
appears
that
the
information
you
have
provided
is
based
on
public
websites,
news
reports,
and
social
media
posts.
Maryland
Rule
19-711(b)(2)
states,
“Bar
Counsel
.
.
.
may
decline
a
complaint
submitted
by
an
individual
who
provides
information
about
an
attorney
derived
from
published
news
reports
or
third
party
sources
where
the
complainant
appears
to
have
no
personal
knowledge
of
the
information
being
submitted.”
Folks…
your
professional
gatekeepers
in
2026!
Last
month,
the
Virginia
State
Bar
decided
to
pass
on
an
ethics
complaint
against
phony
U.S.
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan.
Manifesting
Professional
Responsibility
Bartleby,
Virginia
looked
at
the
ethics
charges
and
replied
“I
prefer
not
to.”
Virginia
claimed
it
couldn’t
enforce
the
standards
of
our
profession
because
it
needed
to
defer
to
the
courts.
In
their
defense,
the
courts
do
seem
to
be
actively
building
a
record
of
Halligan’s
deeds.
Maryland’s
going
one
better
by
claiming
it
won’t
consider
ethical
violation
if
they’re
too
obviously
verifiable.
“The
Maryland
Bar
Rules
do
not
limit
bar
complaints
only
to
those
personally
impacted
by
a
lawyer’s
misconduct,”
Campaign
for
Accountability
Executive
Director
Michelle
Kuppersmith said.
“Although
their
rules
say
they
‘may’
dismiss
a
complaint
that
draws
on
public
accounts,
it
is
fully
within
their
discretion
to
choose
otherwise.
Clearly,
the
Bar
was
looking
for
whatever
excuse
it
could
find
to
duck
its
responsibility
to
hold
its
members
accountable
for
misconduct.”
Carr’s
alleged
misconduct
wasn’t
some
private
negotiation
gone
wrong
or
an
under-the-table
ethical
breach.
The
statements
were
made
on
a
podcast.
He
told
to
the
world
that
ABC
and
its
affiliates
could
“do
this
the
easy
way
or
the
hard
way”
and
that
there
would
be
“additional
work
for
the
FCC”
if
the
network
didn’t
take
action
against
Kimmel.
Even
Ted
Cruz
—
Ted
Cruz!
—
recognized
these
comments
for
what
they
were,
calling
them
“right
out
of
‘Goodfellas’”
and
“dangerous
as
hell.”
Maryland
authorities
could
themselves
have
“personal
knowledge
of
the
information
being
submitted”
if
they
would
just
open
up
their
Spotify.
The
complaint
alleged
violations
of
multiple
rules,
including
D.C.
Rule
8.4(d)
(conduct
that
seriously
interferes
with
the
administration
of
justice),
Rule
8.4(e)
(implying
an
ability
to
improperly
influence
a
government
agency),
and
Rule
4.4(a)
(using
means
that
serve
no
substantial
purpose
other
than
to
embarrass
or
burden
a
third
person).
Just
because
disciplinary
officials
can
decline
to
take
the
case,
that
doesn’t
mean
they
should.
A
rule
allowing
bar
counsel
to
decline
complaints
based
on
news
reports
might
make
sense
in
some
contexts.
No
one
wants
the
disciplinary
authorities
launching
investigations
every
time
someone
reads
a
misleading
headline
about
a
lawyer.
But
the
alleged
misconduct
here
is
the
public
statement
itself.
There
is
no
other
avenue
to
acquire
knowledge
of
these
alleged
violations
than
listening
to
the
public
statement.
For
what
it’s
worth,
Carr
has
raised
other
ethics
questions
related
to
allegations
that
he
used
the
FCC
to
extort
concessions
for
the
White
House
as
part
of
the
Paramount/Skydance
merger.
That’s
the
dangerous
signal
of
a
rule
like
the
one
Maryland
drapes
itself
in
here:
refusing
to
investigate
based
on
public
statements
and
actions
is
a
tailor-made
excuse
to
alleviate
public
officials
from
all
of
their
professional
obligations.
Disciplinary
authorities
exist
because
the
profession,
supposedly,
holds
itself
to
higher
standards
than
the
bare
minimum
of
avoiding
criminal
conduct.
They’re
supposed
to
have
a
broader
portfolio
and
address
conduct
that
may
not
end
up
in
court
but
still
presents
a
risk
to
the
public.
A
federal
official
threatening
to
use
his
regulatory
authority
to
silence
political
speech
would
seem
to
fall
squarely
within
that
wheelhouse.
Most
of
the
people
desecrating
the
moral
foundation
of
this
country
will
never
face
any
accountability.
When
Donald
Trump
exits
the
stage
—
if
he
exits
the
stage,
which
is
a
genuine
question
—
he’ll
issue
blanket
pardons
of
all
the
masked
thugs
he
sent
to
harass
and
kill
in
the
cities
that
didn’t
vote
for
him.
It’s
simply
a
redux
of
his
January
6
pardons,
only
this
time
those
same
rioters
have
badges.
He’ll
also
shield
those
who
issued
the
orders,
up
to
and
including
himself,
from
prosecution.
But
some
of
the
architects
of
this
dumpster
fire
are
attorneys.
And
our
profession
holds
its
members
to
higher
standards.
When
this
administration
ends,
those
lawyers
are
going
to
look
for
other
jobs
and,
as
a
profession
that
values
the
rule
of
law,
it’s
imperative
that
we
make
sure
to
police
our
own
here.
So
far,
we’re
doing
a
really
bad
job.
Earlier:
Virginia
State
Bar
Whistles
Past
Lindsey
Halligan
Ethics
Complaint
Claiming
It’s
Not
Their
Job
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
