Jill Wine-Banks says we can get rid of William Barr via disbarment

[FM123]

She was asked by John Heilemann this afternoon (Nicolle Wallace was off today) about what to do about William Barr and this is what she told him:

This time it looks like Barr has made a series of incompetent moves:
His taking control of the Federal Troops at Lafayette Square, his clearing the way for using the gas at Lafayette Square - there’s a whole series of things where he has apparently pissed off The House and I think we need to take into account not just deliberate malice and obstruction, but that he’s being incompetent. And I think the thing that can be done - because realistically between now and election you are not going to be able to get an impeachment on even though it’s well deserved - but there is The Bar and he could be disbarred and I think that’s something that no one should ignore and that we should pay attention to what he is doing to undermine the Department of Justice.


*she also suggested that public outrage could force him out or force trump to remove him, less likely I think...

[UTUSN]

1. Do it!

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Why would he not

be disbarred at this point?

[Ms. Toad]

5. It takes a lot to disbar someone.

Both substantively - and procedurally.

Typically disbarrment is a last resort - and can take years.

Clintonwas impeached in 1998, but his 5-year license suspension for perjury was not imposed until 2001. (And his license was suspended, but he was not disbarred.)

[Mme. Defarge]

6. No doubt a good thing,

but this is an emergency, and it’s not exactly a marginal case. Just sayin’...

[StarfishSaver]

8. That won't make it go any faster

It would still go long past the election.

And even if it did happen sooner, he could still stay on as attorney general.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Due process. Just sayin'

Disbarring someone deprives them of a property right granted by the state - and a very significant one, at that. The license is the means to their livelihood.

Just like you can't toss someone in jail because it is an emergency, and sort out the process later, you can't take someone's law license and prove the deserved it later.

The standard for disbarrment is not threat to the country in the particular job he holds - it is whether he violated specific ethical provisions. He almost certainly has - but how much damage the specific job he holds might allow him to do if we don't stop him fast doesn't come into play in deciding - first - that he has violated ethical standards and - second - what the punishment should be. And - in all cases I'm aware of - whatever the decision of the local bar association he will get at least one, likely two, levels of appeal.

In other words it's not the responsibility or right of the state bar to make employment decisions about Barr.

[Mme. Defarge]

11. Of course this makes perfect sense.

I’m just expressing my frustration in the face of the extreme threat he poses for the rule of law.

[Ms. Toad]

12. I definitely share that frustration!!

[totodeinhere]

25. Only if Trump gets reelected and keeps Barr on as AG would there be enough time to go

through the disbarment process.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Yup,

and since the suggestion to disbar him was because it was thought to be faster or easier than impeachment, this doesn't get us there.

[elleng]

3. 'we need to take into account not just deliberate malice and obstruction,

but that he’s being incompetent.'

[Ms. Toad]

4. That requires a complaint to the bar association in the state(s) in which he is licensed.

My recollection is that is more than one, so to knock him out of the job he would need to be disbarred in every jurisdiciton in which he is licensed.

Disbarrment is a pretty steep punishment, so typically it is a last resort after other punishments are imposed. Like everything in the law, there is at least one layer of appeal - and he may (or may not) be permitted to practice law in the meantime.

I think it's safe to say that it would be nearly impossible to disbar him before Trump leaves office, assuming we defeat him in November.

(Not suggesting we shouldn't try - just that, realistically, it is unlikely to be any more successful than impeaching him, in the short term.)

[StarfishSaver]

7. Disbarment wouldn't get rid of him

There's no requirement that an attorney general be a member of the bar.

[Ms. Toad]

10. I don't believe that's correct, but it is surprisingly hard to track down a definitive answer

The USAG represents the United States on legal matters. It would constitute the unauthorized practice of law to do so without a license to practice law.

Pretty much every reference I can find says that. The explicit requirement is probably buried in the fine print of the laws or regulations - but that would take more energy than I want to expend tracking it down.

ETA - each of the duties below in bold/underline would constitute the unauthorized practice of law, if done by a disbarred Barr:

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.

Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

[StarfishSaver]

13. There is no legal requirement that the AG be an attorney

Plenty of lawyers work in government, including in the Justice Department, whose licenses are not active. Overseeing lawyers is not practicing law and can be done without being a member of any bar.

Unlike some state laws that require state attorneys general to be members of the bar, neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal law requires the U.S. attorney general to be a licensed attorney. 28 U.S.C Section 503, which governs this, simply says "The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice."

Yes, some of an AG's duties may include representing the government in court, but they are not required to do so. Attorneys General rarely appear in court. If they do, yes, they must not only be licensed to practice law, they must also be admitted to the court before which they're appearing. But if they don't, they don't need to be licensed.

Interestingly, Section 505, governing the appointment of the Solicitor General, requires the SG be "learned in the law," a requirement not imposed upon the appointment of the Attorney General.

There is also no requirement that any federal judge, including U.S. Supreme Court justices be licensed or even have a law degree.

And you can bet that, if Barr were disbarred before the end of the term, he would hide behind this lack of affirmative legal requirement and not go anywhere. Arguably, a disbarment could be firm grounds for impeachment and removal, but good luck with getting that done before the election.

[Ms. Toad]

14. There are three job requirements, at a minimum, that require a licensed attorney

Job duties of attorney general

So it does not appear to be an express requirement - BUT - no one but a licensed attorney can represent the US on legal matters, represent it in the Supreme court and all other courts, or furnish it with legal advice. Only one of those (representing the US in courts) can be delegated, according to the job description. So performing the tasks required by law requires the candidat for the job be a licensed attorney (The section you quoted describes the process, not the characteristics of the person appointed.)

Judges are different - rendering judicial opinions does not constitute the practice of law, so acting as a judge does not create the ethical violation that performing all of the duties of the attorney general would inherently require. (Many judges go on inactive status, rather than maintin their law licenses, for that reason.)

It is odd that representing anyone but yourself (i.e. the US) requires a license - but deciding who wins (and determining the law of the land as to common law) does not. But that's our system.

[StarfishSaver]

16. The fact that those are among the duties of the AG does not mean that the AG has to be licensed

If there's anything the AG can't do if he/she's not an attorney, they would just delegate it to someone else.

For example, as I said, AGs rarely appear in court, so the fact that that's one of the "duties" is irrelevant. They don't have to do it nd simply delegate it to someone else who is licensed before that court.

AGs supervise every U.S. Attorney in the country, but they're not required to be licensed in the state in which those U.S. Attorneys and offices operate. Using your argument that all of the AG's duties constitute the practice of law requiring a license, AGs would have to be licensed in all 50 states since, belonging to the bar of, for example, New York or DC would not authorize them to perform those duties in any other state.

And no, the section I cited doesn't simply describe the "process." It's the enacting statute for Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. if there were any legal requirements for the position, they would be stated there (or in the Constitution), just as they are set out in Section 505 for the Solicitor General.

I'm not arguing that it's ok for an AG not to be a licensed attorney. I'm just saying that there is no legal requirement that they be one.

[Ligyron]

19. thank you

Or a judge to be an attorney

[totodeinhere]

24. That is correct. If he were disbarred he would be under tremendous pressure to resign,

but there is no law or regulation that specifically says that the attorney general must be a licensed attorney.

But I support disbarring him anyway.

[StarfishSaver]

27. He needs to be disbarred because he's a disgrace to the legal profession

[Thekaspervote]

15. One can hope!!

[progressoid]

17. Yeah...that'll never happen.

[flibbitygiblets]

18. YES! Dis-barr him and then de-Barr the rest of us.

Going to the ABA now to see if there's a place to contact them about this.

[47of74]

22. ABA couldn't do anything about him unfortunately

They're a voluntary bar association that doesn't regulate the profession. They mainly set standards for law school, provide continuing education, and produce model ethics codes. They don't license attorneys nor take disciplinary action.

The agencies that regulate the profession (either mandatory bar associations or the courts) in the states that fuck Barr is licensed in would be the ones to take action.

[flibbitygiblets]

23. That explains why I couldn't find anything. Thanks for the info.

[StarfishSaver]

28. I believe he's Iicensed in New York and DC

[Music Man]

30. I was hoping to be the first one to make the "dis-Barr-ment" pun.

You beat me to it. Rats.

[yaesu]

20. I think even Bozo the clown can be named AG in a fascist state. nt

[flibbitygiblets]

21. "benefits of increased incarceration would be enjoyed disproportionately by black Americans"

That was a direct quote from a report Barr authored in '92 entitled "The Case for More Incarceration"

"enjoyed"

Jesus Christ.

[onenote]

31. Here is the full quote, which conveys something different than the partial quote.

One can disagree with concept of increased incarceration as a policy choice, but its misleading to quote it partially.


"The benefits of increased incarceration would be enjoyed disproportionately by black Americans living in inner cities, who are victims of violent crime at far higher rates than whites or persons who live outside the inner cities."

[onenote]

29. given the procedural steps required, this is a pipe dream

Plus, the DC Bar will never disbar him for the actions he has taken.