Two Trump appointed attorneys disqualified (one for claiming to hold office she does not; another after the court found he did not have a right to hold the office)

Back in November of 2025, a federal District Judge found that Lindsey Halligan's appointment as interim US Attorney was unlawful, and that, therefore, she had no authority to hold the office she claimed to hold at the time.  As you probably remember, this is the insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience that the Trump administration appointed, among other things, to bring charges against James Comey.  

Although the government appealed the judge's opinion and order, no court has issued a stay which means the order remains in place.  

For that reason, earlier this week, another federal judge was surprised to see that Ms. Halligan has continued to appear before his court still claiming to be a US Attorney, and promptly ordered her to explain herself and to explain why her conduct does not constitute a false or misleading statement in violation of professional conduct rules.  

The Hill and Above the Law have the full story (and the judge's order).

Meanwhile, in New York, another federal judge has disqualified the top federal prosecutor in upstate New York and blocked subpoenas his office issued to state Attorney General Letitia James finding that the lawyer's service as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York “was and is unlawful” because the Justice Department maneuvered to keep him in the role after judges declined to extend his tenure, in violation of statutory procedure.

Again, The Hill and Above the Law have the story.

ABA publishes new Formal Ethics Opinion on conflicts of interest because of duties owed to prospective clients under Model Rule 1.18

 Today the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published Formal Opinion 510 on whether an attorney should be disqualified from representing a new client against a former prospective client.  Go here to access the full text of the opinion (you can download it too).  Here is the opinion's summary: 

Under Rule 1.18 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer who was consulted about a matter by a prospective client, but not retained, is disqualified from representing another client who is adverse to the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received from the prospective client “disqualifying information”—i.e., information that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client in the matter. But, if the lawyer “took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client,” and the firm takes specified procedural precautions, then the lawyer’s conflict of interest is not imputed to others in the lawyer’s firm.

This opinion addresses the “reasonable measures” necessary to avoid the imputation of conflicts of interest under Rule 1.18.1 First, information that relates to “whether to represent the prospective client” includes information relating to (1) whether the lawyer may undertake or conduct the representation (e.g., whether a conflict of interest exists, whether the lawyer can conduct the work competently, whether the prospective client seeks assistance in a crime or fraud, and whether the client seeks to pursue a nonfrivolous goal), and (2) whether the engagement is one the lawyer is willing to accept. Second, to avoid imputation, even if information relates to “whether to represent the prospective client,” the information sought must be “reasonably necessary” to make this determination. Third, to avoid exposure to disqualifying information that is not reasonably necessary to determine whether to undertake the representation, the lawyer must limit the information requested from the prospective client and should caution the prospective client at the outset of the initial consultation not to volunteer information pertaining to the matter beyond what the lawyer specifically requests.

You can access all other ABA Ethics Opinions (dating back to 1984) here. The most recent ones are available to everyone, but the older ones are now available only to members.  So if you are not a member, download what you need now before it becomes unavailable.

New ABA Formal Opinion on confidential government information

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility just released a new Formal Opinion (Number 509).  The title is Disqualification to Prevent the Misuse Use of “Confidential Government Information” and the summary reads as follows:

Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(c) protects a person from the misuse of certain information about the person that the government used its authority to acquire. The confidential information protected by Rule 1.11(c) is defined by the Rule as information obtained under government authority about a person which the government is prohibited from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose and is not otherwise available to the public. The Rule provides that a lawyer who acquired the information while serving as a government officer or employee is disqualified from representing a “private client” whose interests are adverse to prevent the confidential government information from being used to the material disadvantage of that person. The Rule applies regardless of whether the lawyer seeking to represent the private client has left government employ or office or maintains a private law practice (e.g., a part-time practice) while still in government employ or office. The Rule applies to a lawyer representing a “private client,” meaning a client whom the lawyer represents in private practice, regardless of whether the client is a public entity or private individual or entity. 

 For now you can access (and download) the opinion here.  After some time, it will be archived and available to members only, so go get it now.

Articles on why the allegations against Fani Willis are irrelevant to the criminal case

 If you have been watching the news about the case against former president Trump in Georgia, you know that the defendant has argued the case should be dropped or that the prosecutor should be disqualified because of certain alleged inappropriate conduct. 

The conduct in question should be taken seriously but it is irrelevant to the case in question.

Here are two articles that explain why:

Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law, in Just Security, by Norman L. Eisen, Joyce Vance and Richard Painter

Defendants in the Georgia election case have no reason to complain — even if the Fani Willis allegations are true, in CNN, by Bruce Green