Trump’s DOJ Cracks Down On ‘Unethical’ Legal Practices

Department of Justice sign on building wall.

President Trump has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate lawyers accused of engaging in “lawfare,” with prominent Democratic election attorney Marc Elias specifically named as a target due to his firm’s involvement with the controversial Steele dossier.

Key Takeaways

President Trump issued a directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi to review attorneys and law firms suspected of engaging in unethical “lawfare” practices against the government.
Marc Elias and his law firm were specifically named in the directive for their alleged involvement with the Steele dossier.
Attorneys found violating professional conduct rules could face disciplinary action, loss of security clearances, or termination of federal contracts.
The directive cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which prohibits filing litigation for improper purposes such as harassment or unnecessary delay.
Critics argue the move threatens the rule of law and is meant to intimidate legal opposition.

Presidential Action Targets Legal “Misconduct”

The White House recently released a memorandum directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a comprehensive review of attorneys and law firms suspected of misconduct related to “lawfare” against the United States government. The directive specifically mentions Marc Elias and his firm, Elias Law Group LLP, citing their involvement with the Steele dossier. This action represents a significant escalation in President Trump’s efforts to address what his administration characterizes as abuses of the legal system by partisan actors.

The memorandum establishes a framework for identifying and potentially sanctioning attorneys engaged in what the administration deems frivolous litigation against the government. Attorney General Bondi has been instructed to refer lawyers for disciplinary action if they are found to have violated professional conduct rules. Potential consequences include revocation of security clearances, termination of federal contracts, and referrals to state bar associations for possible disbarment proceedings.

Trump’s DOJ targets law firms over weaponization: ‘Grossly unethical misconduct’ https://t.co/r5KoRmnahS pic.twitter.com/AExHqeK94m

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) March 25, 2025

Legal Standards and Enforcement Mechanisms

The presidential directive cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as standards prohibiting unethical conduct by attorneys in federal courts. Rule 11 specifically prohibits filing litigation “for improper purpose[s]” or “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” The Justice Department has begun implementing this review, focusing on alleged misconduct occurring over the past eight years.

“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” says Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Legal experts note that while Rule 11 exists as a procedural tool to sanction improper litigation, it has historically been used sparingly. The directive empowers Bondi to recommend various consequences for lawyers pursuing cases deemed frivolous, including financial penalties. However, critics argue that there is no clear definition of “frivolous” litigation under Rule 11, raising concerns about its potential application in politically charged contexts.

Targeted Firms and Their Responses

Beyond the Elias Law Group, the administration has also focused on other law firms perceived as adversarial to Trump. A separate executive order specifically targeted Jenner & Block, which previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor involved in past investigations of Trump. In a notable development, Trump rescinded an order against the firm Paul Weiss after the firm reportedly committed to providing pro bono services aligned with the administration’s initiatives.

“President Trump is attempting to dismantle the Constitution and attack the rule of law in his obsessive pursuit of retribution against his political opponents. Today’s White House Memo targets not only me and my law firm, but every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law,” said Marc Elias.

The DOJ directive particularly focuses on lawyers involved in asylum litigation and claims against the government, characterizing these actions as undermining immigration laws. With the Trump administration currently facing over 100 lawsuits related to its government operations overhaul, the new legal strategy has significant implications for major law firms engaged in these disputes. Critics are concerned about the potential chilling effect on attorneys representing clients in cases against the government.

Criticism and Constitutional Concerns

Critics of the administration’s directive have raised alarms about potential threats to democratic principles and the legal profession’s independence. Some legal experts suggest the investigation could exceed appropriate boundaries and target attorneys simply for opposing government actions. The initiative has sparked debate about the proper role of the Justice Department and whether such reviews could undermine the adversarial legal system that serves as a check on government power.

“The real question is, how effective is that investigation going to be and how much is it going to veer into what exactly it seems like, which is a threat against anybody who has dared to take a position opposed to the government,” said Rebecca Roiphe.

The White House has defended the initiative as necessary to ensure accountability within the legal profession, especially in matters affecting national security, public safety, and election integrity. Administration officials emphasize that the directive aims to uphold established legal standards rather than silence opposition. As the Justice Department begins implementing the review, its application and impact will be closely watched by legal professionals, civil liberties organizations, and government officials alike.