Introduction

On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo declaring that Department of Justice (DOJ) “attorneys are expected to zealously advance… their client’s interests,” including “vigorously defending presidential policies and actions against legal challenges.”[1] Bondi threatened discipline or termination of “any attorney who because of their personal political views… refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration.”[2]

Just a couple weeks later, President Trump issued Executive Order 14215, strengthening this stance:

No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or Attorney General’s opinion as a matter of law.[3]

Throughout 2025, the DOJ has publicly admonished attorneys who deviate from the Administration’s legal interpretations.[4] This, in conjunction with shifting DOJ priorities–including heightened pursuit of denaturalizations, immigration enforcement, and petty offenses against Customs and Border Protections officers[5]–has created conditions ripe for a mass exodus of attorneys from the Department.

While the exact number of attorneys who have departed Bondi’s DOJ to date is unclear, sources report that the Department faces a staffing crisis.[6] For example, as of July 2025, 69 of approximately 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch, responsible for defending Trump’s policies against legal challenges, have voluntarily left the Department.[7]

This piece will explore developments under Bondi’s DOJ, ethical concerns faced by DOJ attorneys, and future implications of the Department’s shifting advocacy policies.

‘Zealous Advocacy’ in Bondi’s DOJ

An attorney’s duty to advocate zealously on behalf of a client is codified in jurisdictional codes of professional conduct. Most U.S. jurisdictions have adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.3, Comment 1 of the Model Rules provides that “a lawyer must [act]… with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.”[8]

However, Bondi’s enforcement of this duty treads into unprecedented waters.

In an interview for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Professor John P. (“Sean”) Coffey, former General Counsel of the Navy and Professor of Professional Responsibility at Georgetown University Law Center, expressed concern with the memo’s unconventional language.

“It is perfectly appropriate for the Attorney General to say, ‘You need to set aside your personal interests and carry out the best interests of your client,’” said Coffey.[9] “But it’s unusual to say, ‘do so or you could be fired.’”[10]

The Department’s April 2025 firing of Erez Reuveni is a key illustration of such unorthodoxy. Reuveni, former acting Deputy Director of the DOJ’s Office of Immigration, represented the Trump Administration in Abrego Garcia’s deportation suit. He was dismissed after conceding to a federal judge that Garcia had been deported to Salvadoran prison in error.[11]

Bondi asserted that Reuveni failed to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States.[12] “He argued against Homeland Security and [the] State Department, and so he’s not with our office anymore, and he won’t be coming back,” said Bondi said in a Fox News interview.[13]

Reuveni’s admissions to the Maryland District Court were subsequently categorized by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer as “inappropriate statements” that “do not reflect the position of the United States.”[14]

Critics argue that a fall-in-line-or-be-gone philosophy will endanger the integrity of the DOJ.[15] Specifically, there is growing concern that looming threats of dismissal or discipline may chill attorneys’ ability to critically engage with case strategy and representation.

According to Professor Coffey, Bondi’s stance on zealous advocacy bears consequences for the Department’s ability to handle cases ethically.

“[The policy is] intended to intimidate,” said Coffey. [16] “It’s part of a broader effort to quash not just dissent, but any kind of feedback. It will tend to quash the reasonable back-and-forth in a law firm or in the DOJ that you count on to get to the right result.”

For Liz Oyer, quashing dissent is the name of the DOJ’s game. Oyer, a former DOJ Pardon Attorney fired in May 2025, filed suit against the Department after her alleged wrongful termination.[17] Oyer claims her dismissal was the result of Bondi’s insistence on total compliance with the Department’s political agenda.

“No one told me why I was fired,” Oyer wrote in Rolling Stone.[18] “But the notice was delivered hours after I declined to recommend reinstating the gun rights of a famous friend of the president, the actor Mel Gibson, who has a history of violence against women.”[19]

Oyer claims the Department refused to hand over records relating to her work on the Gibson matter and records pertaining to her termination, to which she is lawfully entitled under the Freedom of Information Act.[20] Oyer is also appealing her termination through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administrative agency responsible for enforcing federal civil service protections. Among other denied protections, Oyer asserts that she did not receive the 30 days’ advance written notice and opportunity to contest the termination that she is entitled to under 5 U.S.C. § 7543(b).[21]

Since her termination, Oyer launched a social media campaign to bring awareness to the DOJ’s “unchecked bullying.”[22] She has gained traction on Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn, with hundreds of comments praising her for keeping those outside the legal community abreast of the DOJ’s activities.

In similar fashion, Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was dismissed from the DOJ in July 2025.[23] During her tenure, Comey prosecuted a number of high-profile defendants, including Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean “Diddy” Combs. Without warning or advance notice, Comey received an email notifying her that she had been removed from the DOJ “pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.”[24]

In September, Comey sued DOJ to challenge her termination.[25] Comey asserts that, despite her “exemplary performance,” she was terminated “without cause, without advance notice, and without opportunity to contest” her removal.[26] She is seeking, among other things, declaratory relief that the Department violated the Separation of Powers and impermissibly relied on Article II removal powers when it fired her.

Terminations like Reuveni’s, Oyer’s, and Comey’s paint a troubling picture for the DOJ, especially in light of growing accusations that the Department’s prosecutorial priorities are politically-motivated.

Noah Rosenblum, New York University Associate Professor of Law, analyzed the issue in Bloomberg Law[27]:

“We’re seeing Donald Trump treat the Justice Department as his own personal law firm, to do his own personal bidding even when it is in violation of the laws and interests of the United States,” said Rosenblum.

Ethical Concerns for DOJ Attorneys

DOJ attorneys have ethical duties beyond zealously advocating for the United States. Attorneys, no matter who their client is, must still abide by applicable rules of professional conduct. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that attorneys shall exhibit candor toward the tribunal (Model Rule 3.3)[28] and exercise independent professional judgment (Model Rule 2.1).[29]

David Sklansky, Stanford Law School Stanley Morrison Professor of Law, said in an article by the Constitutional Accountability Center:

“All lawyers have ethical obligations to be honest and forthright in their representations to the courts, and this obligation has always been understood to be particularly important for lawyers representing the government.”[30]

Executive Order 14215 complicates the picture. The Order’s command that federal officials cannot “advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or Attorney General’s opinion as a matter of law” may conflict with DOJ attorneys’ independent evaluations of the legality of the President’s or the Attorney General’s positions.

Sarah Harrison and Mark Nevitt, writing for Just Security, said further:

Not only does such a mandate on government lawyers directly conflict with their ethical obligation to exercise independent judgment and offer candid advice, as well as their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, it also appears intended to silence attorneys who would otherwise speak out against what they determine to be illegality coming from the White House or the Department of Justice… [Executive Order 14215] effectively eliminates the ability of counsels…to provide independent assessments.[31]

Moreover, the DOJ’s insistence on zealous advocacy of particular Government positions, in conjunction with its willingness to remove attorneys who dissent, poses a threat to the Department’s credibility in court.

“There is a growing body of evidence that judges have come to be skeptical of what they’re being told by this Justice Department,” said Professor Sean Coffey. “The integrity of the [DOJ] is at great risk right now.”[32]

Paths Forward

So, in circumstances like Erez Reuveni’s, Liz Oyer’s, or Maurene Comey’s, what ought a lawyer do?

Legal analysts and practitioners alike continue to wrestle with this question. According to Liz Oyer, though, now is not the time to stay silent.

“Those in the legal profession are facing hard and often costly choices at the moment,” Oyer writes on her blog.[33] “[This is] a sincere plea to my colleagues to look beyond the short-term costs of standing up and speaking out, and to consider the longer-term consequences of staying in the shadows and bearing witness silently.”[34]

Law students should consider their role in the legal field—and the ethical conflicts at play within it—as future leaders and changemakers, not as mere spectators. For those who feel disillusioned by Bondi’s command of the DOJ, Professor Coffey urges perseverance.

“You need to stay the course,” said Coffey. “You’re going to be the leaders of the Bar, the leaders of industry. The country will only survive and thrive if the rule of law once again becomes sacrosanct. Every law student can play a role in that.”[35]

 

---

[1] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388521/dl?inline.

[2] Id.

[3]  Exec. Order No. 14215, § 7, 90 Fed. Reg. 10447 (Feb. 18, 2025).

[4]  See, e.g., Ryan Lucas and Scott Simon, Trump’s Justice Department Demotes Senior Attorneys Who Oversaw Jan. 6 Cases, NPR (Mar. 1, 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5313836/trumps-justice-department-demotes-senior-attorneys-who-oversaw-jan-6-cases; Erica Orden, Maurene Comey, Daughter of James Comey and Prosecutor of Jeffrey Epstein, Fired, Politico, (July 16, 2025) https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/16/maurene-comey-fired-doj-00458921?homescreen=1.

[5]  See, e.g., Ryan J. Reilly, Jury Acquits D.C. ‘Sandwich Guy’ Charged With Chucking a Sub at a Federal Agent, NBC News (Nov. 6, 2025) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/dc-sandwich-guy-verdict-rcna242142; Jaclyn Diaz and Juliana Kim, DOJ Announces Plan to Prioritize Cases to Revoke Citizenship, NPR (June 30, 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement.

[6]  Carrie Johnson, Layoffs at the Department of Justice are Transforming Its Workforce, NPR (July 31, 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5484932/layoffs-at-the-department-of-justice-are-transforming-its-workforce.

[7]  Andrew Goudsward, Two-Thirds of the DOJ Unit Defending Trump Policies in Court Have Quit, Reuters (Jul. 14, 2025) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/two-thirds-doj-unit-defending-trump-policies-court-have-quit-2025-07-14/.

[8]  Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.3, cmt. 1 (2023) [hereinafter Model Rules].

[9] Telephone Interview with John P. “Sean” Coffey, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (Oct. 29, 2025).

[10] Id.

[11]  Joel Rose, Trump Administration Admits Maryland Man Sent to El Salvador Prison By Mistake, NPR (Apr. 1, 2025)  https://www.npr.org/2025/04/01/nx-s1-5347440/trump-administration-admits-maryland-man-sent-to-el-salvador-prison-by-mistake.

[12]  Glenn Thrush, Justice Dept. Accuses Top Immigration Lawyer of Failing to Follow Orders, N.Y. Times (Apr. 5, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/justice-dept-immigration-lawyer-leave.html.

[13] Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, Bondi’s Firing of DOJ Lawyer for Lack of ‘Zealous Advocacy’ in Deportation Case Raises Concerns, Constitutional Accountability Center: News (May 1, 2025) https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/bondis-firing-of-doj-lawyer-for-lack-of-zealous-advocacy-in-deportation-case-raises-concerns/.

[14] Id.

[15] Jacqueline Thomsen, Bondi’s Attorney Advocacy Memo Raises Independence Concerns, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 7, 2025) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bondi-raises-independence-concerns-with-attorney-advocacy-memo.

[16] Telephone Interview with John P. “Sean” Coffey, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (Oct. 29, 2025).

[17]  Complaint, Oyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 25-cv-01555 (May 15, 2025).

[18]  Elizabeth Oyer, Trump’s Lawyers Fired Me After I Refuseds To Let Mel Gibson Have Guns, Rolling Stone (Mar. 14, 2025) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-justice-department-fired-mel-gibson-guns-1235296311/.

[19]  Id.

[20]  Complaint, Oyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 25-cv-01555 (May 15, 2025).

[21]  Liz Oyer, Why I’m Suing the Department of Justice, Lawyer Oyer (May 16, 2025) https://www.lawyeroyer.com/p/why-im-suing-the-department-of-justice.

[22]  Oyer, supra note 14.

[23]  Orden, supra note 3.

[24]  Complaint at 2, Comey v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 25-cv-07625 (Sept. 15, 2025).

[25]  Id.

[26]  Id.

[27]  Thomsen, supra note 12.

[28]  Model Rules R. 3.3.

[29]  Model Rules R. 2.1.

[30]  Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, supra note 10.

[31] Sarah Harrison and Mark Nevitt, The Caribbean Strikes and the Collapse of Legal Oversight in U.S. Military Operations, Just Security (Oct. 23, 2025).

[32] Telephone Interview with John P. “Sean” Coffey, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (Oct. 29, 2025).

[33]  Liz Oyer, Now Is Not the Time for Anonymity, Lawyer Oyer (July 26, 2025) https://www.lawyeroyer.com/p/now-is-not-the-time-for-anonymity.

[34] Id.

[35] Telephone Interview with John P. “Sean” Coffey, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (Oct. 29, 2025).