Attorney General Pam Bondi should be suspended from the practice of law by the Florida Supreme Court Based on Her Unethical Conduct
On Saturday, April 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi placed DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni on administrative leave, on the grounds that he had failed to zealously represent the government at a deportation hearing regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Garcia had been removed from the United States to El Salvador despite having been granted withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge in 2019.[1] In a pleading signed by Attorney Reuveni, the government stated that Garcia’s removal was the result of an “administrative error.”[2] At a hearing on Friday, the 4th, the court asked Reuveni why Garcia was removed despite the Immigration Court’s order. Reuveni did not repeat the government’s previous position; instead, he told the Court that he didn’t know.[3]
On Fox News Sunday, Bondi explained that Reuveni had violated a memo she issued on September 5, 2024 warning government prosecutors that failure to represent the government zealously would result in sanctions. She said that Reuveni should have either not taken the case or not made the statement he did.[4]
Whatever zealous representations entails, it does not permit attorneys to violate state ethics rules. When the Department of Justice took the position that ethics rules did not bind federal prosecutors, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 530B, which made state ethics rules applicable to government attorneys.
Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.
(c) As used in this section, the term `attorney for the Government’ includes any attorney described in section 77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations and also includes any independent counsel, or employee of such a counsel, appointed under chapter 40 [28 USCS §§ 591 et seq.].
The Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland state:
RULE 704. RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
This Court shall apply the Rules of Professional Conduct as they have been adopted by the Supreme Court of Maryland.
RULE 703. ATTORNEYS SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE
Any attorney practicing before this Court or who has practiced before this Court in any way shall be deemed thereby to have conferred disciplinary jurisdiction upon the Court for any alleged misconduct of that attorney. To the extent appropriate, all Rules set forth herein as applicable to attorneys admitted to practice before the Court shall also be deemed applicable to and enforceable against any attorney participating in any manner in any proceeding in this Court, whether or not admitted to practice before the Court.
Unquestionably, Department of Justice Attorney Erez Reuveni was subject to the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Those rules provide:
RULE 19-303.3. CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (3.3)
(a) An attorney shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the attorney;
* * * * * * * * * * *
(b) The duties stated in section (a) of this Rule continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 19-301.6 (1.6).
It is clear from what Reuveni stated at the hearing that he was unable to support the government’s previously stated explanation for Garcia’s removal as an “administrative error.” To the extent he had filed pleading stating that it had been a “administrative error,” he was ethically bound to correct that statement. Equally clear is the duty to remain on the case so that the error could be corrected. Contrary to Bondi’s assertion, withdrawing from the case in order to prevent the erroneous statement from being corrected was not an option, nor was remaining on the case and allowing the court to continue to be misled.
In regard to Ms. Bondi. She is an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Florida. As such she is subject to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Rule 4, the Rules of Professional Conduct state:
RULE 4-3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL
(a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
Comment
Representations by a Lawyer
[A]n assertion purporting to be on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.
Here the Attorney General sanctioned an attorney for making a disclosure which he was obligated to do in order to correct an affirmative misrepresentation. In doing so she sent a clear message to attorneys throughout the government that they were prohibited from complying with ethical rules that required they correct false representations made to a court.
Ms. Bondi’s unethical conduct goes far beyond the particulars of the Garcia case because they implicate the conduct of government lawyers in every matter before the federal courts. It is nothing short of an effort to circumvent 28 U.S.C. § 530B by asserting a duty to promote the interests of the Executive Branch even if doing so requires misleading the court and disregarding ethical rules.
In United States v. Tapp, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44212, *31 (S.D. Ga. 2008), Chief Judge William T. Moore Jr. observed.
The traditional understanding about state and federal prosecutors is that they should have heightened ethical responsibilities. Traditional thinking is that federal prosecutors should represent the government in a loyal and disinterested manner. They are charged with an overarching duty to seek justice.
The American Bar Association concurs:
ABA Prosecution Function
Standard 3-1.4 The Prosecutor’s Heightened Duty of Candor
(a) In light of the prosecutor’s public responsibilities, broad authority and discretion, the prosecutor has a heightened duty of candor to the courts and in fulfilling other professional obligations.
The Court’s Memorandum Order demonstrates that the Department of Justice cares not one whit whether it has the legal authority to remove a person from the United States and place them in one of the most dangerous prisons in the world, To achieve its ends, it will even claim that a person has a criminal record, when there is no evidence to support that claim, and is a terrorist, when it has no credible to support that claim either. And once placed in the custody of a foreign government, it will argue that it lacks the power to obtain their return.
Compared to this conduct, an ethical violation may seem a minor infraction. But with the federal government under the control of men and women for whom the law means nothing, the States may be the only thing that can stand in their way.
[1] Memorandum Order, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia v. Kristi Noem, Case No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX, Document 31 (DCDMd 04/06/25), p1.
[2] Defendants’ Corrected Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining, Order, Case No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX, Document 12-1, (DCDMd 04/01/25
[3] Id. p. 2, See Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, 25: 13–14 (Mr. Reuveni: “We have nothing to say on the merits. We concede he should not have been removed to El Salvador.”); see Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, 34:25– 35:5 (The Court: “[W]hat basis is he held? Why is he [in CECOT] of all places?” . . . Mr. Reuveni: “I don’t know. That information has not been given to me. I don’t know.”)
[4] The Hill, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5235778-doj-suspends-lawyer-deportation-case/:
He was put on administrative leave by Todd Blanche on Saturday. And I firmly said on Day 1, I issued a memo that you are to vigorously advocate on behalf of the United States. Our client in this matter was Homeland Security — is Homeland Security. He did not argue. He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do. He’s on administrative leave now,” she said. “You have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client.