WASHINGTON — Two allies of President Donald Trump have initiated campaigns for leadership positions within the D.C. Bar Association, a subtle move that could provide them with greater influence over this prominent legal organization.
This initiative surfaces during a time of conflict between bar associations and the Trump administration, as some federal attorneys are seeking ethical guidance from their state organizations in the face of Trump’s accelerated transformation of government.
Bradley Bondi—brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi—and Alicia Long—a deputy to Ed Martin, Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia—are candidates for the roles of president and treasurer. The election period extends from April to June, as per the organization’s official site.
Though bar associations may not attract much attention from the general public, they are significant to legal professionals. These non-governmental bodies determine who is eligible to practice law and who remains in good standing amidst allegations of misconduct. The D.C. Bar, as it is colloquially known, boasts over 120,000 members and serves as the licensing authority for a considerable number of federal attorneys due to its location.
The drive to gain control of the D.C. Bar comes after warnings directed at bar associations by Trump administration officials, who lawyers, both within and outside the government, have implied could interfere with legally questionable aspects of Trump’s agenda.
On one of her initial days in office, Pam Bondi cautioned career lawyers about the potential for termination if they refused to follow orders based on personal objections. Concurrently, the D.C. Bar offers a confidential legal ethics hotline for members to raise concerns.
Bondi and Long each have one challenger. If elected, they would become members of the professional organization’s 23-person Board of Governors. Although the D.C. Bar does not directly discipline lawyers for misconduct, its board proposes candidates for the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility, the disciplinary body of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Disciplinary actions are initiated by a separate Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes ethical grievances against lawyers.
With Republicans holding power in both the House and the Senate, bar discipline might be one of the last avenues for accountability concerning Trump-appointed attorneys. Recently, a group of Democratic senators submitted a letter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel raising “grave concerns” about some of the questionable actions taken by Martin since taking on the role of interim U.S. attorney. The letter accused him of “serious violations of professional conduct” and misusing his position. Martin did not respond to requests for comment.
Some attorneys involved with Trump have faced sanctions in Washington due to their actions. Last year, Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington following his attempts to overturn Trump’s 2020 election defeat, with a committee from the Board on Professional Responsibility concluding that his actions demonstrated an “utter disregard for facts” that tarnished the legal profession.
Jeffrey Clark—a former Justice Department attorney whom Trump sought to appoint as attorney general in the lead-up to the January 6, 2021, attack—appeared before the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility last year and invoked the Fifth Amendment. A preliminary decision indicated he had committed an ethical violation, leading to a recommendation for a two-year suspension from practicing law made in August. Following Trump’s return to the White House, Clark now serves as acting administrator of the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Additionally, a Republican report released in December by Rep. Barry Loudermilk alleged possible coordination between House January 6 investigators and the D.C. Bar aimed at targeting an attorney representing a former Trump White House aide. (The Office of Disciplinary Counsel dismissed that complaint last year.)
The campaigns of Bondi and Long have raised alarms among attorneys in Washington. An email reviewed by NBC News, which circulated among numerous lawyers in the Washington area and on social media, labeled the pair as “Trump/Pam Bondi loyalists” seeking to “take over the DC Bar,” prompting recipients to pay attention and vote accordingly.
One attorney from a federal agency indicated that the pro-Trump initiative to secure leadership roles at the D.C. Bar implies the administration “might be experiencing internal pushback” from lawyers worried about the potential professional ramifications for executing Trump’s agenda.
“They recognize this as a potential vulnerability,” this individual added.
Neither Bondi nor Long responded to requests for comment, nor did the D.C. Bar provide a statement when contacted.
Bondi’s competitor, Diane A. Seltzer, an employment law attorney currently serving on the D.C. Bar’s Board of Governors, stated her decision to run stemmed from decades of bar leadership experience and the current critical juncture in history.
“I want to support our bar members during this period of governmental turmoil,” she said. “Our legal system needs a bar that comprehends and advocates for them, helping to sustain their energy and prevent burnout.”
While the D.C. Bar does not oversee the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, anyone can lodge a complaint there, with matters ultimately reviewed by the Board of Professional Responsibility. The D.C. Bar seeks candidates for the Board of Professional Responsibility, but the final selections are made by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Despite this, there are concerns among some Washington attorneys that the D.C. Bar might disregard Court of Appeals directives or orders from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel under the influence of Trump-supportive officials.
“I would never aspire to be president of a bar that would entertain such actions,” Seltzer emphasized. “I would not want to lead a bar where those boundaries could be blurred, leading to the rejection of Court of Appeals rulings or Office of Disciplinary Counsel mandates.”
The disciplinary process can be lengthy. Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens—a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington who aggressively prosecuted anti-Trump protesters during Trump’s first inauguration—has only recently faced disciplinary proceedings, eight years later, over allegations of concealing exculpatory evidence from defendants.
The Trump administration’s relationship with bar associations has been fraught with tension, as Republicans have persistently accused these organizations of exhibiting a left-leaning bias—a sentiment that escalated during Trump’s first term when the American Bar Association (ABA) rated several of his judicial appointments as “not qualified.”
Project 2025 aimed at the ABA within its policy framework for a future conservative administration, urging the president to issue an executive order to investigate the association for its diversity initiatives. One of Trump’s initial executive orders called for investigating bar associations regarding their diversity programs.
Last month, the ABA criticized what it deemed the Trump administration’s “broad-scale assaults on the rule of law.” After billionaire Elon Musk, who is aiding Trump’s government overhaul, suggested impeaching judges who ruled against Trump, the ABA responded this Tuesday, affirming it would “not remain silent in response to efforts to transform the legal profession into one that rewards compliance with the government while punishing dissent.” The ABA added that such intimidation tactics “cannot be condoned or normalized.”
On Wednesday, Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff at the Justice Department, retaliated against the ABA, stating on X that “they mask their advocacy as efforts to ‘promote the best quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct, professionalism, and pro bono and public service work in the legal profession,’ yet neglect to mention their partnership with left-leaning causes.”
Additionally, he claimed that the association’s “commitment to leftist activism undermines justice” and noted that under the attorney general’s “leadership, the DOJ is implementing President Trump’s executive orders aimed at dismantling radical DEI programs, while challenging the ABA’s unlawful diversity mandates for law school accreditation.”
In 2020, the ABA rated Mizelle’s wife, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, as “not qualified” for a U.S. district court judgeship in Florida. At the time, she was just 33, making her the youngest individual Trump appointed for this lifetime post. She ultimately received confirmation for the position in November 2020.
