Bar Complaint Filed Against Letitia James as DOJ Prepares Appeal of Dismissed Charges

Let us be clear about what happened here: A federal judge dismissed criminal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, but the story is far from over. The charges were thrown out on a technicality regarding prosecutorial authority, not on the merits of the case itself. Now the Department of Justice plans to appeal, and a conservative watchdog group has filed a separate bar complaint that could threaten James’ law license.

The facts matter here. Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee brought in from South Carolina to avoid conflicts of interest in Virginia, dismissed the indictments because she determined that the U.S. attorney who brought them, Lindsey Halligan, lacked proper authority. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the charges can be refiled. This is not an exoneration. This is a procedural hurdle.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made the administration’s position crystal clear: “We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsey Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position, but she was in fact legally appointed. And I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very short order.”

Meanwhile, the Center to Advance Security in America has filed a complaint with New York’s Attorney Grievance Committee, accusing James of professional misconduct related to her Norfolk, Virginia mortgage. These are the same allegations that formed the basis of the now-dismissed federal bank fraud charges. The watchdog group argues that James engaged in illegal and dishonest conduct in connection with the mortgage, raising serious questions under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

Curtis Schube, the group’s director of research and policy, laid out the argument in a four-page complaint: “Fraud, misrepresentation, honesty and trustworthiness are all factors that the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly consider when weighing whether to discipline an attorney. The Committee, therefore, should immediately investigate the allegations against James and, if by ‘preponderance of the evidence’ the allegations are substantiated, she should be disciplined accordingly.”

This matters because Letitia James has spent years pursuing President Trump through the New York court system, weaponizing her office for explicitly political purposes. She campaigned on targeting Trump, she has targeted Trump, and she has vowed to continue targeting Trump. The irony of her now facing allegations of financial misconduct while she prosecutes others for similar alleged violations is not lost on anyone paying attention.

The dismissal of the federal charges does not resolve the underlying questions about James’ conduct. A bar complaint operates independently of criminal proceedings. If the Attorney Grievance Committee finds sufficient evidence of misconduct, James could face professional discipline ranging from censure to disbarment, regardless of what happens with the federal charges.

The Department of Justice’s planned appeal will test whether Halligan’s appointment was legitimate. If the appeals court reverses Judge Currie’s decision, the criminal cases against both James and Comey could proceed. If the appointment is upheld as valid, we are back to square one with serious allegations of bank fraud and false statements.

The dual-track approach, criminal charges and professional discipline, demonstrates that accountability can take multiple forms. James may have avoided immediate criminal jeopardy due to a procedural issue, but the substantive allegations remain unresolved. The bar complaint ensures that the questions about her conduct will be examined through the lens of professional ethics, which is entirely appropriate for someone who holds a law license and serves as a state’s chief law enforcement officer.

This is how the system should work. When serious allegations arise against public officials, particularly those in law enforcement positions, multiple avenues of accountability should be pursued. The facts will ultimately determine the outcome, not political positioning or procedural maneuvering.