🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official Bar complaint with the Committee on Professional Standards against New York Attorney General Letitia James for violations of the rules of professional conduct.

"As a Representative of New York committed to upholding the integrity of our legal system, I have found New York Attorney General Letitia James’ handling of the investigation and trial of President Donald Trump nothing short of shameful. It is evident that Attorney General James violated fundamental principles of fairness and impartiality by engaging in a relentless lawfare campaign against President Trump, marked by over 50 prejudicial comments on social media during just the first five weeks of the trial. It’s been her explicit mission since she announced her run for office to go after President Trump. Such behavior not only undermines the integrity of the legal process but also violates the Rules of Professional Conduct to which James, as a licensed attorney, is bound.

While all Americans possess the right to express their opinions on matters of public interest, attorneys–particularly state attorneys general–are held to a higher standard due to their unique role as officers of the court. Her conduct not only constitutes a breach of her professional responsibilities but also risks irreparable harm to the public's already eroding trust in our legal institutions. I urge the Attorney Grievance Committee to immediately conduct a thorough investigation and take appropriate disciplinary action, including the immediate interim suspension, disbarment, or suspension of Attorney General James, to uphold the integrity of our legal profession and ensure justice is served impartially."

See the FULL complaint here:

And below in this thread:

🧵– 1/9:

February 12, 2024

Committee on Professional Standards
286 Washington Avenue Extension
Suite 200
Albany, New York 12203

Dear New York Committee on Professional Standards:
New York Attorney General Letitia James violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by conducting a biased investigation and prosecution of President Trump and by attacking President Trump through extrajudicial statements during a trial. In just the first five weeks of the trial that began in October 2023–before I stopped counting–Ms. James made over 50 highly inappropriate and prejudicial comments on social media. This complaint respectfully requests that the Attorney Grievance Committee conduct an investigation and issue an immediate interim suspension, disbar Ms. James as an attorney and counselor-at-law, or suspend Ms. James.

The investigation and trial of President Trump are matters of enormous public interest and concern. All citizens, including Ms. James, have rights under the First Amendment to speak freely on matters of public interest and concern. However, as a licensed attorney, Ms. James is subject to special rules and responsibilities under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules create specific restrictions that apply only to attorneys, not to ordinary citizens or members of the general public. See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991) (distinguishing the lawyer’s more constrained latitude to speak about pending cases as an “officer of the court,” from “the common rights of citizens” to speak freely about judicial matters). As set forth herein, Ms. James’ conduct appears to violate her special responsibilities as an attorney, and her actions warrant discipline.

I. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct apply to Ms. James.

As an attorney licensed in New York, Ms. James is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 266, 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) (“All attorneys who are licensed to practice law in New York are subject to the Rules of Conduct, . . .”); 22 NYCRR 1240.1(a). It is well-settled that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply even to public officials in New York like Ms. James. “Holding a public office . . . is not a shield behind which breaches of professional ethics, otherwise warranting disciplinary action, are permitted. Rather, a lawyer who holds public office must not only fulfill the duties and responsibilities of that office, but must also comply with the Bar’s ethical standards.” Matter of Malone, 480 N.Y.S.2d 603, 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984), aff’d sub nom. In Matter of Malone, 482 N.E.2d 565 (N.Y. 1985). In fact, service as the New York Attorney General has been considered an aggravating factor in a previous disciplinary action because the Attorney General “had substantial experience in the practice of law at the time of this conduct.” Matter of Schneiderman, 144 N.Y.S.3d 436, 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). At the time of this complaint, Ms. James has been licensed as an attorney in New York for more than 30 years. [1]

The Rules of Professional Conduct begin by outlining the broad duties and obligations of each lawyer:

As an officer of the legal system, each lawyer has a duty to uphold the legal process; to demonstrate respect for the legal system; to seek improvement of the law; and to promote access to the legal system and the administration of justice. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because, in a constitutional democracy, legal institutions depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.

Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct, ¶ 1. The Rules of Professional Conduct “concern conduct both inside and outside the courtroom.” Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d at 269–70 (internal citations omitted).

Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be professionally disciplined, such as by disbarment or suspension. N.Y. Judiciary Law § 90(2). “The ultimate purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public in its reliance upon the integrity and responsibility of the legal profession.” In re Nearing, 229 N.Y.S.2d 567, 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962) (citing In re Gould, 164 N.Y.S.2d 48, 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)). Attorney discipline protects the public by providing “notice to the profession that certain conduct will not be tolerated and is thereby an assurance to the public that, as far as known, certain taints do not exist, because, if discovered, they would be eradicated. In re Nearing, 229 N.Y.S.2d at 569 (internal citation omitted).

This Attorney Grievance Committee has jurisdiction over this complaint because the Attorney General’s primary office is in the state capitol building in Albany, New York. See Matter of Malone, 480 N.Y.S.2d at 605-06.

II. Ms. James’ personal vendetta against President Trump raises serious ethical concerns.

Ms. James has pursued a personal vendetta against President Trump since he first was elected President of the United States. Ms. James’ comments as Attorney General and as a candidate for Attorney General adversely reflect on her fitness as a lawyer and implicate Rule 8.4(h) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

A. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(h).

Rule 8.4(h) states, “A lawyer or law firm shall not: … (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.” Statements to the media have served as the basis for disciplinary sanctions against lawyers under Rule 8.4(h). See, e.g., Matter of Holtzman, 577 N.E.2d 30, 32 (N.Y. 1991); Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d at 270 (“[T]he AGC relies upon statements that respondent made following the 2020 election at press conferences, state legislative hearings, radio broadcasts (as both a guest and host), podcasts, television appearances and one court appearance.”). In Holtzman, the Court of Appeals affirmed disciplinary sanctions against an attorney who made a false allegation about a judge to the media. Matter of Holtzman, 577 N.E.2d at 33 (“[P]etitioner was plainly on notice that her conduct in this case, involving public dissemination of a specific accusation of improper judicial conduct under the circumstances described, could be held to reflect adversely on her fitness to practice law”).

B. Ms. James’ actions and comments suggest she has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Before she became a candidate for Attorney General, Ms. James displayed extreme partisan hostility toward President Trump. During President Trump’s first year in office, Ms. James led “die-in” protests against President Trump because “we are all being killed by this administration.”[2] Ms. James also accused President Trump’s administration of “blatant disregard for human lives.”[3] Ms. James bragged about her leadership of, and dedication to, the “resistance” movement in late 2017: “I’ve been leading the resistance against Donald Trump in NYC and will only continue to do so in every way possible.”[4]

Ms. James campaigned for attorney general on a platform explicitly focused on attacking President Trump and promising investigations of him. During her campaign, Ms. James called President Trump a “con man” and a “carnival barker.”[5] In a 2018 campaign debate, Ms. James explicitly promised to “focus on Donald Trump” if she were elected attorney general.[6] Ms. James’ obsession with President Trump continued in her 2018 election night victory speech, when she said her victory “was about that man in the White House who can’t go a day without threatening our fundamental rights,” and pledged to “shin[e] a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”[7] During the transition period before she took office, James promised to “use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.”[8]

Ms. James leveraged her campaign attacks against Donald Trump into fundraising appeals. In July 2018, Ms. James posted messages to ActBlue, a Democrat party and candidate fundraising platform, that “[i]n this fight against Donald Trump and his harmful administration, I need your help.”[9]

Ms. James did not just promise baseless investigations against President Trump. She also prejudged evidence she had not seen to call for criminal charges. As a candidate, Ms. James “made it clear that Trump would be her top target,” telling voters before she had been elected that “Trump should be indicted on criminal charges.”[10] Before the primary election, Ms. James specifically called for President Trump to be indicted on criminal charges, including obstruction of justice, and accused him of money laundering through his real estate holdings.[11] “Donald Trump’s days of defrauding Americans are coming to an end,” Ms. James promised.[12]

C. Ms. James’ personal vendetta implicates Rule 8.4(h).

Ms. James has displayed a personal vendetta against President Trump that renders her unable to impartially handle cases against President Trump. She used promises of investigations against President Trump to win votes and raise money in her campaign for Attorney General. Despite her clear bias, Ms. James has launched frivolous investigations and lawsuits against President Trump, his family, and his businesses. Ms. James also prejudged evidence she had not seen and called for criminal indictments on that basis. It should go without saying that the abuse of an attorney’s official position—especially an elective office—to pursue a personal vendetta violates the most basic ethical precepts.

As a lawyer, Ms. James should not have made these comments about President Trump. Having made these comments, Ms. James should have recused herself from any official action by her office involving President Trump.

Even legal commentators who politically oppose President Trump have recognized the ethical issues created by Ms. James’ statements. Now-Rep. Daniel Goldman, who served as lead impeachment counsel for the Democrat House Majority against President Trump, warned that Ms. James’ statements gave the appearance of “an individualized vendetta . . . It’s essential that prosecutors maintain their neutrality and an objective view of the facts and the evidence, no matter the politics involved.”[13] Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney, counsel to Robert Mueller, and chief of staff to James Comey, called for Ms. James to consider recusing herself from any matters involving President Trump because her comments before she became Attorney General “demonstrate a prejudgment of the facts and a political predisposition to the issues she now must manage apolitically and dispassionately. Every good prosecutor knows those comments are a problem.”[14] Rosenberg renewed his calls for Ms. James to consider recusal again in 2021 because she “publicly prejudged” matters involving President Trump and “her prior remarks give rise to a perception of unfairness.”[15]

As the Supreme Court said in a case involving President Trump, the law seeks to protect against the abuse of the political motivations of state prosecutors. Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2428 (2020). Ms. James’ extreme partisanship, lack of impartiality, personal vendetta, and jumping to baseless conclusions adversely reflects on Ms. James’ fitness as a lawyer under Rule 8.4(h). Ms. James’ refusal to recuse from matters that she prejudged and is biased also adversely reflects on Ms. James’ fitness as a lawyer under Rule 8.4(h).

The Attorney Grievance Committee should suspend Ms. James on an interim basis while it investigates whether Ms. James’ pursuit of her personal vendetta violated Rule 8.4(h). If the Committee determines that Ms. James violated Rule 8.4(h), she should be disbarred or suspended.

III. Ms. James’ trial publicity against President Trump raises serious ethical concerns.

In September 2021, Ms. James filed a civil lawsuit against President Trump, members of his family, his business, and some business employees.[16] From the very beginning of the case and continuing through trial, Ms. James has repeatedly made public statements personally attacking President Trump, publicly commenting on and mischaracterizing evidence, attacking the credibility of witnesses, and maligning President Trump and other parties and witnesses when discussing the lawsuit, even as trial on these matters remains ongoing.eliseforcongress.com/wp-content/upl…

🧵– 2/9:

At the press conference announcing the lawsuit against President Trump, Ms. James accused President Trump of violating the law, falsely inflating his net worth and cheating the system—all obvious prejudicial extrajudicial comments. “For too long, powerful, wealthy people in this country have operated as if the rules do not apply to them,” Ms. James claimed. “Donald Trump stands out as among the most egregious examples of this misconduct. . . . With the help of his children and senior executives at the Trump Organization, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself and cheat the system.”[17] Ms. James then mocked President Trump’s best-selling book, “The Art of the Deal”: “Claiming you have money that you do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. It’s the art of the steal,” Ms. James said.[18] Ms. James has held other press conferences and given other media interviews since filing the lawsuit against President Trump, including during the trial.

Ms. James also has communicated through social media about President Trump and the trial. Just during the first five weeks of the trial starting in October 2023, Ms. James posted about President Trump and his family more than 50 times on her official X account.[19] As of November 9, 2023, when I stopped tallying, these posts have been viewed more than 54 million times.[20] Screenshots of these posts are provided in the Appendix and are incorporated herein by reference. In these posts and other public statements made while the trial is on-going, Ms. James has accused President Trump of illegal conduct, called President Trump and members of his family liars, and personally attacked President Trump.

Ms. James’ comments during the lawsuit and trial appear to violate Rule 3.6 and Rule 8.4(h) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

A. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6.

Rule 3.6 governs trial publicity. According to Rule 3.6(a), “A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in a criminal or civil matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” “Knowingly . . . denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” Rule 1.0(k). Rule 3.6 applies to prejudicial comments made during non-jury proceedings. Rule 3.6 cmt. 6.

B. Ms. James’ legal conclusions about President Trump’s conduct.

During the trial, Ms. James repeatedly made prejudicial public comments about President Trump’s conduct, accusing him of acting fraudulently, making false statements, cheating, and committing other illegal acts. For example, just in the first five weeks after the trial began in October 2023, Ms. James has made the following extrajudicial statements:

- “When it comes to running a company, Donald Trump doesn’t care about the facts. Instead, he engages in fraud to enrich himself and his family.”[21]
- “Donald Trump and the other defendants have committed persistent and repeated fraud.”[22]
- “Regardless of Donald Trump’s fantasy beliefs, here are the facts: He inflated his personal net worth and engaged in years of financial fraud to enrich himself and his family.”[23]
- “Donald Trump and the Trump Organization filed fraudulent financial statements, inflating his personal net worth by billions.”[24]
- “For years, Trump evaded justice for his repeated fraud, and as we continue to present our case, we will show just how much he unfairly benefited.”[25]
- “Over the course of that investigation, we uncovered Donald Trump’s incredible fraud and all the ways he used that fraud to enrich himself.”[26]
- “For years, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system.”[27]
- “We presented our opening statement, called our first witness to the stand, and began laying out how Trump cheated the system to enrich himself and his family.”[28]
- “The testimony of these individuals, and the accompanying exhibits, show the incredible scale and scope of Donald Trump’s fraudulent business practices and that they were used to enrich himself and his company.”[29]
- “In this country, there are consequences for this type of persistent fraud, and we look forward to demonstrating the full extent of his fraud and illegality during trial.”[30]
- “And now we look forward to disgorgement and to the remaining counts in our action against Donald Trump and his repeated and consistent fraud against the citizens of the great state of New York.[31]

C. Ms. James’ accusations that President Trump and other Trump family members have lied.

During the trial, Ms. James repeatedly accused President Trump and members of his family of lying, thus publicly commenting on the credibility of witnesses while trial is ongoing. For example, just in the first five weeks after the trial began in October 2023, Ms. James has publicly stated:

- “[President Trump] has repeatedly and consistently lied about the value of his assets to fraudulently enrich himself and his family.”[32]
- “Donald Trump directed those around him to lie and scheme to make his fantasy a reality. But fraud is very real.”[33]
- “We have proven that Donald Trump lied about his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system.”[34]
- “Donald Trump might lie, but the facts and the numbers don’t.”[35]
- “Trump can keep spreading rumors. Trump can keep lying. But the truth always prevails.”[36]
- “[Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump] pretend that they were not involved in their family’s fraudulent business. But the facts tell a very different story.”[37]
- “In fact, just a week after he was confronted with the truth that his father’s triplex was three times smaller than the statement of financial condition said it was, Donald Trump, Jr. continued to lie.”[38]
- “And [Eric Trump] was intimately involved in lying about the values of properties . . . .”[39]
- “In a deposition, Eric Trump claimed he had nothing to do with valuations and property development. He said he did not sign documents or speak to real estate professionals. He said he just poured concrete. But we know that is not the truth.”[40]
- “For years, the defendants built a business on lies and misrepresentations.”[41]
- “When you have built an empire on falsehoods, the truth is your only enemy.”[42]

D. Ms. James’ personal attacks against President Trump.

During the first five weeks of the trial that began in October 2023, Ms. James repeatedly launched personal attacks against President Trump. For example, Ms. James made the following extrajudicial statements:

- “The Donald Trump show is over.”[43]
- “Donald Trump lives in a fantasy land.”[44]
President Trump is “fomenting violence” and “race-baiting” with comments about the trial that were “offensive,” “baseless,” and “void of any facts and/or any evidence.”[45]
- President Trump is making “dangerous, racist comments.”[46]
President Trump’s appearance in court for a case in which he is a party is “nothing more than a political stunt, a fundraising stop.”[47]
- “Donald Trump is a bully, but he is not the first bully we’ve stood up to, and he will not be the last.”[48]
- “Donald Trump can lie, complain, and throw insults around as much as he wants.”[49]
- “And while I am sure [President Trump] will try to hide his wrongdoing behind taunts, threats, and name calling, . . .”[50]
- “Trump can try to hide his wrongdoings behind taunts and threats, . . .”[51]
- “This morning, Donald Trump resorted to bullying and name calling, he gave rambling answers and hurled insults from the witness stand to distract from the truth.”[52]

E. Ms. James’ trial comments appear to violate Rule 3.6 and Rule 8.4(h).

Once again, Rule 3.6(a) provides, “A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in a criminal or civil matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” Ms. James appears to have violated this rule through her numerous extrajudicial statements about President Trump during the trial.

Participation. Ms. James is participating in the civil lawsuit and trial against President Trump. Ms. James brought the lawsuit through the office that she leads; her name is in the lawsuit caption and signature block.[53] Ms. James also has personally attended the trial.[54]

Extrajudicial statements. Ms. James made numerous extrajudicial statements about President Trump during the trial. She held press conferences and gave interviews and statements about the case since the day she filed it,[55] as well as on virtually every day of the trial.[56] Through her official social media account, Ms. James also has posted more than 50 times about President Trump’s trial in just the first five weeks.[57] These posts often include videos of Ms. James discussing her views of witness testimony and evidence received in court that day. Ms. James has effectively appointed herself to the role of a real-time, daily, highly partisan public commentator on the trial and the witnesses testifying at trial.

Knowledge of public dissemination. Ms. James knows or reasonably should know that her extrajudicial statements about President Trump during his trial will be disseminated by means of public communication. In fact, by posting on social media to tens of thousands of followers and giving public press conferences, she plainly intends for such dissemination to occur. President Trump is a former President of the United States and the leading candidate for President in 2024. This trial has received global media attention, in keeping with the global media attention that President Trump has received since at least 2015. Indeed, Ms. James knows or reasonably should know that comments about President Trump will be disseminated by means of public communication because she has personally benefited from this dissemination by making President Trump the focal point of her first campaign for Attorney General in 2018.[58]

As further evidence of her knowledge, Ms. James has specifically sought national attention for her lawsuit and trial against President Trump. Ms. James announced the lawsuit at a press conference that received national attention.[59] She also has publicized developments in the case to receive national attention.[60] In addition, Ms. James’ posts and press conferences during the trial have been reported in numerous publications in the United States and almost every continent around the world.[61]

Ms. James also has personally and publicly disseminated extrajudicial statements about President Trump during his trial. Ms. James has posted on X more than 50 times about President Trump during the first five weeks of the trial alone.[62] Ms. James had more than 557,000 followers on X who received her posts about President Trump.[63] Engagement statistics publicly provided by X and visible to Ms. James on each social media post show that Ms. James’ posts about President Trump during the first five weeks of the trial have been viewed more than 54 million times.[64]

For these reasons, Ms. James knows or reasonably should know that her extrajudicial statements about President Trump and his trial will be disseminated by means of public communication.

Prejudice. Ms. James knows or reasonably should know that her extrajudicial statements about President Trump and his trial will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. Indeed, Ms. James’ conduct supports a compelling inference that she is deliberately intending to influence the outcome of the matter by creating a powerful media narrative pre-judging the defendants’ liability. Ms. James’ extrajudicial statements could influence the judge or appellate judges that hear the comments. See, e.g., Patterson, 205 U.S. at 462-63. These comments also may affect public perception of the judgment and appellate decisions reviewing that judgment, such as by making the public more receptive to an unlawful judgment against President Trump, his family, and his business. Finally, these comments by Ms. James could prejudice future jurors in President Trump’s criminal trials, one of …

🧵: Republicans across New York and #NY21 had HISTORIC victories in last night’s local elections– handily DEFENDING Republican incumbents and WINNING upset victories in seats held by Democrats for decades and where Joe Biden previously won by over 30%. Over the past decade, Team Elise has proudly helped build our grassroots infrastructure supporting local and county Republican candidates who WIN year after year. This election included many historic victories for Upstate NY Republicans. @NewYorkGOP

Today marks 1 year since Joe Biden took a blowtorch to the Constitution and began working with House Democrats to destroy our economy and our country.

Never in the history of this nation has a President done so much harm in so little time. Americans know all too well that under Joe Biden, it has been a year of unprecedented CRISES:

❌ Job crisis
❌ Inflation crisis
❌ Energy crisis
❌ National security crisis
❌ Crime crisis
❌ Border crisis

I am publicly calling for an independent investigation into the serious allegations of pervasive workplace sexual harassment & verbal abuse by Governor Andrew Cuomo. The people of New York deserve a Governor who lives up to his own public statements on sexual harassment.👇THREAD “The brave women who chose to come forward deserve swift and definitive justice in this matter.” - Cuomo (1/5)

Announced today: #EPAC's next round of endorsed Rising Star #GOPWomen candidates. More Republican women are running for Congress than ever before and we are in a STRONG position to take back the House with our endorsed candidates. elevate-pac.com/2020/06/10/new… @JeanneIves running in #IL06 is a West Point graduate, US Army veteran, and former State House Rep. She has lived in #IL06 for 27 years, working on tax reform and government transparency -- while raising her 5 children. secure.winred.com/jeanneives/don…

Governor Cuomo continues to point fingers at the federal government.

But here are the FACTS regarding CDC guidance:

The Governor’s decisions to MANDATE that nursing homes accept COVID-19 patients completely disregards the case-by-case approach recommended by CDC. CDC guidance was clear that decisions about discharging COVID-19 patients should be based on the ability of the accepting facility to meet the recommended infection control practices. This includes the ability to place residents in a designated COVID-19 care unit that is equipped

THREAD: Today’s @poststar column by @kentingley ends with a dangerous allusion to gun violence and has no place on the pages of a serious community newspaper. This news editor is well aware of the impact of his words, and is completely unacceptable. I unequivocally condemned violence of any kind, specifically violence against the press, at a public community event in Hudson Falls. The @poststar editor @KenTingley was in attendance but refused to publish my answer. WATCH 👇

Apparently the @gop @nrcc #EPAC success recruiting a historic number of women candidates for 2020 is triggering today’s @nytopinion page meltdown fueled by the #Resistance vortex. The NYT wishful thinking conveniently ignores the facts: (THREAD - this might be a long one)... ✔️Historic number of GOP women have filed to run for Congress in 2020 - 181 - more than ever before.
✔️Majority of @NRCC Young Guns (top tier candidates) are women. That’s never even been close before. Huge win for the cycle.