A prominent group of North Carolina attorneys is sounding the alarm over a proposed Department of Justice rule that they say could sideline - or even effectively shut down - state bar investigations of federal lawyers. The North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers told members this week that the proposal would weaken independent oversight in the state and urged attorneys to read the draft, then file public comments before the federal window closes on April 6, 2026. For lawyers and clients who count on state discipline as a backstop on government power, the group says the stakes would be immediate if the rule is finalized.
The Justice Department rolled out the proposal in early March. Under the draft, the attorney general, or her designee, would be able to review allegations that a current or former DOJ attorney violated ethics rules while carrying out federal duties, and could ask state bar regulators to pause any overlapping investigations until DOJ completes its own review. The notice also instructs department employees to report bar complaints to the Office of Professional Responsibility and says a DOJ lawyer who is the subject of a complaint may not participate in state investigative steps while that internal review is pending. The Federal Register lists the proposal, its docket number and a 30-day comment period scheduled to end April 6, 2026, along with the full rule text.
In North Carolina, the issue hit home when the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers circulated a letter urging members to dig into the proposal and submit comments, according to The News & Observer. The organization’s president, Kimberly A. Moore, is a former federal prosecutor who now leads the group, according to its officers page. In its message, NCABL warned that the rule could "sideline or end" certain state bar probes involving federal attorneys and encouraged local lawyers to weigh in on the public docket. Background on the group and its leadership is listed by the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers.
What the rule would change in practice
The proposal would amend 28 C.F.R. part 77 so that the attorney general, or a designee identified in the notice as the Office of Professional Responsibility, has a right-of-first-review over bar complaints involving DOJ attorneys. If the department decides to exercise that right, it would notify the affected lawyer and the state disciplinary authority, then formally request that the state pause investigative steps that require participation by the DOJ attorney while the federal review is underway. The text goes on to say that if a state disciplinary body "refuse[s]" to suspend such an inquiry, the department "shall take appropriate action" to prevent interference with its review, language that legal observers warn could set up showdowns between federal and state regulators. Federal Register.
Why critics object
Opponents have focused on what is not in the proposal: a clear deadline. Without firm timelines, they argue, DOJ could stretch out its internal reviews and keep state bar cases in limbo for months or years, diluting the independent check that licensing authorities are supposed to provide. Legal groups and practicing attorneys have also warned that the policy might discourage people from filing bar complaints in the first place and could make discipline for federal lawyers hinge on a political appointee’s gatekeeping rather than a fully independent process. National coverage has collected those concerns as the notice circulates, and legal experts are urging commenters to press DOJ on transparency requirements and concrete timelines. Good Morning America.
How to comment
Lawyers, professional groups and any member of the public can weigh in through the federal rulemaking portal. DOJ has directed commenters to the online regulations docket for this rule, where submissions will be posted to the public record. Written comments must be filed by April 6, 2026. To submit, use docket number DOJ-OAG-2026-0001 on the federal portal’s comment page at Regulations.gov.
Local reaction and next steps
North Carolina organizations are tracking the proposal closely, noting that the state bar has been one of the few independent forums for disciplining government lawyers who appear in state courts. NCABL’s letter asked attorneys to study the rule text and tell DOJ whether they believe the change would weaken that oversight, according to reporting by The News & Observer. Because the association traces its lineage to an earlier North Carolina lawyers’ group founded in Durham in 1954, members say the questions raised by the proposal are not just practical but historical as lawyers add their views to the public docket. North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers.
Legal implications
The rule is also expected to provoke constitutional and procedural debates. Critics argue that the proposal trespasses on state supreme courts’ authority over law licenses and could be vulnerable to federalism, separation-of-powers and Administrative Procedure Act challenges if it becomes final. Courts could be asked to decide whether a federal review that effectively pauses state bar proceedings is lawful when it delays independent discipline for an open-ended period. Comments filed through April 6 will help shape the administrative record that judges later examine if the rule is challenged in court. Justia.
_(53840386529).jpg){kind=link}