State Bar Raises Concerns Over Federal Overreach in Law Firm Executive Orders and DOJ Discipline Rule

State Bar Joins Amicus Brief Challenging Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms

The State Bar of California, together with the Oregon State Bar and the Washington State Bar Association, filed an amicus brief Friday, April 3, in support of four law firms targeted by the Trump Administration's executive orders for the firms' representation of clients unpopular with the administration.

At its May 2025 meeting, the Board approved a statement on the executive orders and approved future State Bar amicus participation in lawsuits challenging the executive orders.

Four law firms targeted by the executive orders sued last spring to enjoin their enforcement, and the district court in each case issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement. The administration then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the four appeals were consolidated.

The joint amicus brief highlights how the executive orders infringe on the First Amendment rights of clients to choose counsel and petition the courts, threaten the professional independence of attorneys, and usurp courts' authority over attorney regulation.

The State Bar and the Washington and Oregon agencies were represented pro bono by Ambika Kumar and Caesar Kalinowski IV of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. The Office of General Counsel oversaw the State Bar of California's participation as amicus.

State Bar Provides Comment on Proposed Federal Rule That Would Interfere with State Bar's Mission to Protect the Public in Attorney Discipline Matters

And on Monday, April 6, the State Bar of California's Executive Director Laura Enderton-Speed and Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on a proposed DOJ rule change that would impact California's ability to effectively protect the public in conducting discipline investigations of DOJ attorneys.

Under DOJ's proposed rule, AG Order No. 6653-2026-A, RIN 1105-AB82, DOJ "will have the right to review the allegations [of state bar discipline of its attorneys] in the first instance and shall request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department's review."

The proposed rule change offers no timeline for DOJ to conduct its review and threatens unspecified consequences if a state bar declines the request to suspend its own investigation.

The National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC) filed comments pointing out that the proposed rule violates the Tenth Amendment by intruding on long-recognized state authority to regulate attorneys, is inconsistent with a congressional statute requiring that DOJ attorneys be subject to state rules of professional conduct "to the same extent and in the same manner" as other attorneys, and materially interferes with the public protection mission of state disciplinary authorities.

The State Bar's comments join the NOBC in opposing the proposed rulemaking as "unprecedented, unnecessary, inappropriate," and lacking "both congressional and constitutional authority."

Further, the State Bar's comments note that the proposed rule places California-licensed DOJ attorneys in conflict with their obligations under California statutes and rules, conflicts with the State Bar's public protection mission, and violates the separation of powers and the Equal Protection Clause.

###

Follow the State Bar online
LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube

The State Bar of California's mission is to protect the public and includes the primary functions of licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and support of efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system.