In
case
anyone
was
wondering
whether
state
bars
would
step
up
to
hold
anyone
accountable
if
the
Trump
administration
sends
cronies
to
cosplay
as
U.S.
Attorneys
and
fire
career
prosecutors
so
they
can
file
bad
faith
criminal
cases,
the
Virginia
State
Bar
has
helpfully
answered:
LOL,
no.
Last
month,
the
Campaign
for
Accountability
filed
ethics
complaints
in
both
Virginia
and
Florida
against
Lindsey
Halligan,
the
insurance
lawyer
serving
as
the
Interim-But-Not-Legally-Interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia,
alleging
she’d
violated
multiple
rules
supposedly
governing
members
of
the
bar.
In
response,
Virginia
sent
a
polite
letter
explaining
that
it
would
pass
on
looking
into
allegations
of
a
pattern
of
misconduct
and
would
rather
leave
it
to
the
courts.
“Whether
criminal
indictments
were
obtained
through
material
misrepresentations
of
fact
and
done
for
political
purposes
falls
within
the
authority
of
the
court
to
determine
and
not
this
office.”
Folks…
your
professional
gatekeepers
in
2025!
“If,
when
confronted
with
actions
as
egregious
as
Ms. Halligan’s,
a
state
bar,
which
allegedly
policies
the
conduct
of
its
members,
claims
it
can
do
nothing
more
than
reiterate
the
findings
of
a
court,
what
purpose
does
it
serve?”
asked
Campaign
for
Accountability
CEO
Michelle
Kuppersmith.
“The
courts
have
been
doing
their
job
in
recognizing
misconduct
when
they
see
it.
State
bars
must
do
the
same.”
In
fairness
to
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
most
egregious
allegations
—
the
ones
involving
Halligan’s
illegal
actions
as
a
squatter
pretending
to
be
a
U.S.
Attorney
and
her
shady
effort
to
ramrod
through
a
falsified
indictment
in
a
desperate
bid
to
beat
the
statute
of
limitations
—
may
well
have
been
properly
within
the
court’s
purview.
While
every
adult
with
a
frontal
lobe
already
suspected
that
the
judge
would
find
that
Halligan’s
misadventures
compromised
the
cases,
there’s
nothing
wrong
with
the
state
bar
exercising
prudence
and
steering
clear
of
those
allegations
until
the
court
acted.
For
the
record,
the
federal
judge
presiding
over
these
matters
has
since
confirmed
that
Halligan
possessed
no
more
authority
than
“any
private
citizen
off
the
street
—
attorney
or
not”
and
kicked
the
indictments
as
void.
The
problem
with
the
“we
have
to
defer
to
the
courts”
excuse
from
the
Virginia
Bar
is
that
the
ethics
complaint
raises
more
issues
beyond
the
status
of
the
indictments.
Issues
that
explicitly
fall
outside
the
authority
of
the
court
to
determine.
By
shrugging
off
the
whole
complaint
over
the
limited
issue
of
the
indictments,
the
Virginia
Bar
created
a
troubling
zone
of
unaccountability.
As
the
administration
pressure
tests
every
guardrail
against
corruption
and
abuse,
it
relishes
these
pockets
of
deferment,
where
no
authority
claims
responsibility.
The
courts
can’t
discipline
a
lawyer
for
generally
lawless
conduct,
and
the
state
bar
now
claims
it
can’t
discipline
a
lawyer
without
a
notarized
and
engraved
permission
slip
from
a
judge
that
reads
“Please
Discipline
This
Lawyer.”
Professional
disciplinary
authorities
are
supposed
to
have
a
broader
portfolio
than
the
courts
because
unethical
lawyers
can
stay
on
the
right
side
of
the
courts
while
still
presenting
a
risk
to
the
public.
A
state
bar
is
designed
to
nip
this
Better
Call
Lindsey
pilot
in
the
bud.
The
Campaign
for
Accountability
complaint
included
a
competent
representation
violation,
citing
Halligan’s
criminal
law
experience
—
which
amounts
to
“watched
episode
of
Law
&
Order
(fell
asleep)”
—
and
the
very
public
firings
and
sidelinings
of
veteran
criminal
prosecutors
in
the
office
recommending
against
charges.
This
allegation
is
about
reckless
practice
and
wouldn’t
really
end
up
in
front
of
a
judge.
And
yet
it’s
somehow
fitting
that
this
state
cares
more
about
bar
applicants
wearing
suits
and
dresses
to
take
the
bar
exam
than
the
possibility
that
someone
lacks
the
competence
to
run
a
prosecutorial
office.
It’s
the
sort
of
style
over
substance
response
that
captures
the
zeitgeist
of
the
Trump
era.
It
included
Halligan’s
disastrously
hilarious
Signal
exchange
with
Anna
Bower
of
Lawfare,
where
she
shared
what
she
seemed
to
understand
to
be
an
extrajudicial
disclosure
of
non-public,
sensitive
information
about
ongoing
matters.
When
she
belatedly
tried
to
pull
the
conversation
off
the
record,
she
noted
that
these
were
disappearing
Signal
messages.
Disappearing
message
apps
are
less
a
prosecutor
tool
and
more
of
a
drug
dealer
thing.
Except
drug
dealers
understand
the
rules
of
evidence
better
than
this.
As
the
complaint
states:
Ms.
Halligan’s
actions
in
contacting
a
journalist
through
Signal,
setting
her
messages
to
disappear
in
8
hours
and
retroactively
claiming
the
exchange
was
off
the
record
in
an
effort
to
secretly
influence
media
coverage
of
the
James
case
appears
a
deliberate
violation
of
the
FRAand,
therefore,
a
violation
of
RCP
8.4(b).
None
of
this
turns
on
the
court’s
adjudication
of
the
matter.
It’s
an
allegation
that
the
attorney’s
conduct
—
even
if
the
cases
weren’t
born
losers
—
breaches
ethical
rules.
If
a
government
prosecutor
has
deliberately
set
up
a
spoliation
device
to
obscure
conversations
with
journalists
she’s
having
in
an
effort
to
improperly
influence
the
public
narrative…
that’s
a
job
for
a
state
licensing
authority
to
investigate.
Maybe
the
Virginia
Bar
will
change
its
tune
now
that
the
court
has
taken
action.
Probably
not,
though.
Everyone
knew
that
the
court
would
issue
a
ruling
swiftly
in
this
matter.
If
the
bar
authorities
were
serious
about
waiting
to
see
what
the
court
did
before
initiating
any
investigation,
they
could’ve
kept
quiet
another
week
instead
of
offering
the
legal
equivalent
of
a
“thoughts
and
prayers”
tweet.
At
this
point,
they’ll
likely
hem
and
haw
about
appeals
to
kick
the
can
into
oblivion.
This
letter
is
a
declaration
of
abdication.
And
it
couldn’t
come
at
a
worse
time
for
the
profession.
(Virginia
State
Bar
Letter
available
on
next
page…)
Earlier:
Lindsey
Halligan
Officially
More
Stupid
Than
You
Imagined
Lindsey
Halligan
Manages
To
Lose
Two
Cases
At
Once,
Which
Is
Honestly
Impressive
Is
The
Comey
Case
Barred
By
The
Statute
Of
Limitations?
It’s
Complicated!
(But
Also
Yes.)
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.