I joined the Society for the Rule of Law because I believe in justice, fairness, and the impartial administration of law—principles essential to a free society. Accordingly, I must respectfully disagree with some of the most august members’ of the Society’s decision to file a disciplinary complaint against Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
I acknowledge the concerns about Martin’s conduct, and I do not seek to defend his actions. I speak to the issue of the political weaponization of the disciplinary process. I believe this complaint does just that, and undermines the very rule of law we champion.
This situation is comparable to the 2017 effort to discipline Kellyanne Conway, when law professors and lawyers filed a complaint with the D.C. Bar, claiming her statements as Press Secretary—such as defending Trump’s travel ban or referencing “alternative facts”—violated ethical rules. Those statements were divisive, but they were political speech, made in service of her role. The complaint against Conway was, in my view, a transparent attempt to use professional discipline as a weapon against a political figure, not a genuine effort to uphold legal ethics. The D.C. Bar rightly declined to pursue it, recognizing that disciplinary processes are not forums for settling ideological scores.
These cases bear a striking resemblance to the Trump administration’s own collateral attacks on lawyers, particularly through executive orders and public rhetoric targeting law firms representing clients opposed to its policies.
For example, in 2020, Trump’s allies criticized “Big Law” firms for defending election-related lawsuits against his campaign, with some calling for professional repercussions. More recently, executive actions have threatened punitive measures against lawyers perceived as obstructing administration priorities, such as immigration enforcement or January 6 investigations. These moves were widely condemned by the legal community as assaults on the rule of law, rightly seen as efforts to intimidate attorneys for doing their jobs. The American Bar Association and others spoke out, emphasizing that lawyers must be free to represent clients without fear of politically motivated retribution.
Consider the case of Norm Pattis, a lawyer sanctioned in connection with his representation of Alex Jones in the Sandy Hook defamation lawsuits. Pattis faced a six-month suspension of his law license for allegedly mishandling discovery materials by sharing sensitive documents with unauthorized parties. While discovery violations do matter, the intensity of the scrutiny and the severity of the sanctions imposed on Pattis stand out as disproportionate compared to similar infractions in less high-profile cases. In routine litigation, such errors might warrant a warning or minor penalty, but Pattis’s association with Alex Jones, a deeply unpopular figure, amplified the consequences and was imposed clearly as a warning – do not represent people the powers-that-be dislike. The disciplinary processes can be wielded to punish attorneys for the controversies surrounding their clients rather than for clear ethical breaches.
Yet here lies the hypocrisy: many who loudly defend Big Law’s independence were silent when Conway faced a disciplinary complaint. There was deafening silence from the profession when Pattis was made an example of, so that Jones would have trouble finding counsel. Now as Martin is targeted, the Society that should speak against it, instead is operating the targeting system.
The attacks on Conway, Martin, Pattis, and Big Law are cut from the same cloth—each uses the specter of professional sanction or other external pressure to punish lawyers for their political affiliations or advocacy.
In each case, the push for punishment appears driven by a desire to silence or discredit opponents, not to protect the integrity of the legal profession. To decry Trump’s attacks on lawyers while endorsing or ignoring similar attacks on Conway, Pattis, and Martin is to apply a double standard that weakens our commitment to impartiality.
This inconsistency is not just unfair—it’s dangerous. The rule of law depends on a legal profession free from political vendettas, whether they come from an administration, an academic coalition, or a well-meaning advocacy group like ours.
When we tolerate disciplinary complaints against lawyers for political reasons, we legitimize the tactic, opening the door for others—like the Trump administration—to do the same. The Society’s complaint against Martin, like the one against Conway, and against Pattis risks normalizing the use of professional sanctions as a tool for ideological warfare. If we accept this approach when it suits our views, we forfeit the moral authority to oppose it when it’s wielded against those we defend.
Pursuing Martin’s discipline also threatens public trust in the legal system. The Society rightly champions an independent judiciary and bar, free from undue influence. But when disciplinary actions target individuals based on their politics, they fuel perceptions that the law is just another partisan battleground. This is especially harmful when confidence in institutions is already strained. Those who stood up for Big Law’s right to represent unpopular clients but stayed quiet on Conway, Pattis, and now Martin are not strengthening the rule of law—they are undermining it by signaling that political targeting is acceptable when aimed at the “right” people.
To be clear, I am not defending Martin’s actions uncritically. If evidence emerges of specific ethical violations those should be addressed through proper channels. Similarly, Conway’s rhetoric and Big Law’s choices can be debated in public forums. But the disciplinary process, designed to address clear breaches of professional conduct, is the wrong mechanism for resolving political disagreements. We should critique Martin’s decisions, Conway’s statements, or even Pattis’ and Big Law’s clients through discourse, oversight, or democratic processes—not by politicizing the processes.
I respectfully dissent from the Society for the Rule of Law’s complaint against Ed Martin. I respect the Society and its mission, and I remain proud to be a member. Part of that pride is that I assume there is room for respectful disagreement. I assume that there is such room even if I find myself to be the lone dissent.
Let us strengthen our profession by fostering debate and accountability without resorting to disciplinary processes as weapons. The rule of law demands consistency, not hypocrisy.
