Remember when FCC Chair Brendan Carr started publicly fronting that he’d use his authority to punish Disney and ABC because Donald Trump didn’t like Jimmy Kimmel making fun of him? The Campaign for Accountability does and filed an ethics complaint against Carr in both D.C. and Maryland back in September, alleging that his mob-like threats against ABC and its affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary violated multiple rules of professional conduct.
In response, Maryland sent a polite letter explaining that they’re declining to look into it because the complaint was based on — checks notes — publicly available information.
We have reviewed your complaint. It appears that the information you have provided is based on public websites, news reports, and social media posts. Maryland Rule 19-711(b)(2) states, “Bar Counsel . . . may decline a complaint submitted by an individual who provides information about an attorney derived from published news reports or third party sources where the complainant appears to have no personal knowledge of the information being submitted.”
Folks… your professional gatekeepers in 2026!
Last month, the Virginia State Bar decided to pass on an ethics complaint against phony U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. Manifesting Professional Responsibility Bartleby, Virginia looked at the ethics charges and replied “I prefer not to.” Virginia claimed it couldn’t enforce the standards of our profession because it needed to defer to the courts. In their defense, the courts do seem to be actively building a record of Halligan’s deeds. Maryland’s going one better by claiming it won’t consider ethical violation if they’re too obviously verifiable.
“The Maryland Bar Rules do not limit bar complaints only to those personally impacted by a lawyer’s misconduct,” Campaign for Accountability Executive Director Michelle Kuppersmith said. “Although their rules say they ‘may’ dismiss a complaint that draws on public accounts, it is fully within their discretion to choose otherwise. Clearly, the Bar was looking for whatever excuse it could find to duck its responsibility to hold its members accountable for misconduct.”
Carr’s alleged misconduct wasn’t some private negotiation gone wrong or an under-the-table ethical breach. The statements were made on a podcast. He told to the world that ABC and its affiliates could “do this the easy way or the hard way” and that there would be “additional work for the FCC” if the network didn’t take action against Kimmel. Even Ted Cruz — Ted Cruz! — recognized these comments for what they were, calling them “right out of ‘Goodfellas’” and “dangerous as hell.”
Maryland authorities could themselves have “personal knowledge of the information being submitted” if they would just open up their Spotify. The complaint alleged violations of multiple rules, including D.C. Rule 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice), Rule 8.4(e) (implying an ability to improperly influence a government agency), and Rule 4.4(a) (using means that serve no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden a third person).
Just because disciplinary officials can decline to take the case, that doesn’t mean they should. A rule allowing bar counsel to decline complaints based on news reports might make sense in some contexts. No one wants the disciplinary authorities launching investigations every time someone reads a misleading headline about a lawyer. But the alleged misconduct here is the public statement itself. There is no other avenue to acquire knowledge of these alleged violations than listening to the public statement.
For what it’s worth, Carr has raised other ethics questions related to allegations that he used the FCC to extort concessions for the White House as part of the Paramount/Skydance merger. That’s the dangerous signal of a rule like the one Maryland drapes itself in here: refusing to investigate based on public statements and actions is a tailor-made excuse to alleviate public officials from all of their professional obligations.
Disciplinary authorities exist because the profession, supposedly, holds itself to higher standards than the bare minimum of avoiding criminal conduct. They’re supposed to have a broader portfolio and address conduct that may not end up in court but still presents a risk to the public. A federal official threatening to use his regulatory authority to silence political speech would seem to fall squarely within that wheelhouse.
Most of the people desecrating the moral foundation of this country will never face any accountability. When Donald Trump exits the stage — if he exits the stage, which is a genuine question — he’ll issue blanket pardons of all the masked thugs he sent to harass and kill in the cities that didn’t vote for him. It’s simply a redux of his January 6 pardons, only this time those same rioters have badges. He’ll also shield those who issued the orders, up to and including himself, from prosecution.
But some of the architects of this dumpster fire are attorneys. And our profession holds its members to higher standards. When this administration ends, those lawyers are going to look for other jobs and, as a profession that values the rule of law, it’s imperative that we make sure to police our own here.
So far, we’re doing a really bad job.
Earlier: Virginia State Bar Whistles Past Lindsey Halligan Ethics Complaint Claiming It’s Not Their Job
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post Ethics Authority Won’t Pursue Brendan Carr Charges Because Alleged Misconduct Was Too… Obvious? appeared first on Above the Law.