Instances of egregious unethical behavior have become alarmingly frequent. For example, in 2016, Marc Elias, the founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, played a significant role in the fabrication of a false “dossier” by a foreign individual aimed at providing a deceptive foundation for federal law enforcement to investigate a presidential candidate, thereby attempting to sway the election outcome. Moreover, Elias actively tried to hide his client’s involvement—failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—in the dossier.
The immigration system, characterized by extensive fraud and baseless claims, undermines the constitutional and lawful foundations upon which the President exercises essential powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and is riddled with instances of unethical conduct by attorneys and law firms. Attorneys frequently guide clients to obscure their pasts or fabricate their situations while filing asylum claims, seeking to bypass immigration policies designed to safeguard national security, ultimately misleading immigration officials and courts to grant them unmerited relief. The burden on the Federal Government to gather evidence against these fraudulent claims is tremendous, while this kind of deception erodes the integrity of both our immigration laws and the legal profession at large. It also leads to heartbreaking consequences stemming from rampant illegal immigration, including grave crimes against innocent individuals like Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, or Rachel Morin, along with substantial strains on taxpayer resources allocated for citizens.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 explicitly prohibits lawyers from engaging in specific unethical conduct within Federal courts. Legal representatives must not file legal documents “for improper purpose[s],” including “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly raise the cost of litigation” (FRCP 11(b)(1)). They must ensure that legal arguments are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law” (FRCP 11(b)(2)). Furthermore, they must verify that their factual representations are “reasonably based” on evidentiary support or an honest belief that such evidence exists (FRCP 11(b)(3)-(b)(4)). When these provisions are breached, opposing parties may file motions for sanctions (FRCP 11(c)). This rule specifically calls for sanctions against attorneys and their firms, as well as recalcitrant parties, due to the serious obligation attorneys have to uphold the rule of law and maintain integrity in our legal system. Additionally, Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that, “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, including a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”
Regrettably, a significant number of attorneys and law firms have disregarded these mandates when litigating against the Federal Government or launching imprudent partisan attacks. To remedy these issues, I hereby instruct the Attorney General to pursue sanctions against attorneys and law firms engaging in frivolous, unreasonable, and harassing litigation against the United States or in proceedings before its departments and agencies.
I also direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize the enforcement of their respective regulations concerning attorney conduct and discipline. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. 292.1 et seq.; 8 C.F.R. 1003.101 et seq.; 8 C.F.R. 1292.19.
I further instruct the Attorney General to take necessary actions to refer for disciplinary measures any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government seems to violate professional conduct rules, particularly regarding rules related to meritorious claims and contentions, especially in cases affecting national security, public safety, or election integrity. In executing this directive, the Attorney General should consider the ethical responsibilities law partners have in supervising junior attorneys, including the imputation of ethical misconduct upon partners or the law firm when appropriate.
I also direct that when the Attorney General concludes that an attorney or law firm’s actions in litigation against the Federal Government merit seeking sanctions or other disciplinary actions, the Attorney General shall recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional measures that may be taken, such as reassessing security clearances held by the attorney or terminating any Federal contract for services performed by the relevant attorney or law firm.
I further instruct the Attorney General, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, to review the conduct of attorneys or their firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last eight years. Should the Attorney General identify misconduct that could justify additional actions, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices, the Attorney General is directed to recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that could be taken, including security clearance reassessment for the attorney, termination of any contracts involving the relevant attorney or law firm, or any other suitable actions.
Law firms and individual attorneys possess great power and a vital duty to uphold the rule of law, justice, and order. The Attorney General, in collaboration with the Counsel to the President, shall periodically update the President on improvements by firms aimed at achieving this optimistic vision.
