The recent conviction of Marilyn Mosby on charges of mortgage fraud and the lackluster response of Maryland’s bar counsel follows a pattern that raises alarming questions about the impartiality of bar associations across the United States. In stark contrast to their zeal in pursuing minor infractions committed by conservatives, bar associations have shown a remarkable leniency towards prosecutors who neglect their duties or engage in misconduct, provided those prosecutors align with left-leaning ideologies.
Mosby’s case is a glaring example of this disparity. Despite her federal convictions, the Maryland bar counsel delayed taking action to suspend her license, and even now, there’s speculation that the consequences she faces may be minimal. This is a stark departure from the aggressive manner in which these associations typically handle ethical violations. It begs the question: why the double standard?
Looking beyond Maryland, similar patterns of leniency emerge in cases involving rogue prosecutors from the left. For instance, Kim Gardner, the former Circuit Attorney of St. Louis, resigned amid investigations into her office’s mismanagement. Yet, the state bar’s recommendation was merely a public reprimand and a nominal fine, a decision that the Missouri Supreme Court upheld. This outcome is hardly a deterrent for unethical behavior and stands in sharp contrast to the potential career-ending consequences faced by others for less egregious acts.
Moreover, Rachael Rollins, the former district attorney of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, demonstrated questionable conduct that went unchallenged by the state bar. Rollins went on to serve as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts but stepped down after egregiously violating the Hatch Act. Despite a U.S. Department of Justice report accusing her of lying to federal investigators—a federal crime—the Massachusetts bar has not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against her, eight months after her resignation.
Kevin Clinesmith’s case further underscores the issue. After admitting to altering an email used to obtain a surveillance warrant, Clinesmith faced minimal repercussions from the D.C. Bar, which ultimately restored his status to “active member” in “good standing.” This leniency starkly contrasts with the aggressive pursuit of lawyers who represented President Trump post-2020 election, suggesting a biased application of disciplinary actions based on political affiliations.
These examples highlight a concerning trend: state bar associations appear to wield their considerable power to enforce a partisan agenda, aggressively pursuing those on the right while turning a blind eye to or minimally punishing misconduct by those on the left. This double standard undermines the integrity of the legal profession and erodes public trust in the legal system.
As the American Bar Association pushes for more problematic policies, including speech codes that likely infringe on First Amendment rights, the potential for abuse of power by bar associations grows. It’s time for a broader conversation about the role and responsibilities of these associations, ensuring they uphold the principles of justice and equality before the law, regardless of political persuasion. Without such scrutiny and reform, the legal profession risks becoming an instrument of partisan bias rather than a bastion of impartial justice.
