Disbarment is an appropriate remedy for all lawyers violating the code of professional responsibility, which would include lying to Congress, engaging in conflicts of interest or otherwise committing acts constituting moral turpitude. The AG Gonzales, Justice Dept lawyers are not immune from this punishment.
When Mike Nifong breached his ethical responsibilities as a prosecutor and lawyer in the Duke Lacrosse case, it seemed as if nothing could stop him. As evidence leaked to the news media of his various and sundry ethical lapses, many Republicans who were outraged by such unfair conduct stayed on the offensive. How could justice be served with an unethical prosecutor they cried. The uproar ultimately came to the attention of those lawyers responsible for the high ethical standards of the legal profession. And to the credit of the North Carolina State Bar, this conduct did not go unpunished. A complaint was filed against Mr. Nifong by the State Bar of North Carolina. He immediately recused himself from prosecuting the case and is now fighting to keep his law license. I guarantee you, no prosecutor has failed to notice this turn of events.
Additionally, you should not forget what happened to Bill Clinton' s law license in Arkansas. Republicans were very aware of what unethical conduct could mean before a State Bar, which employs a very different standard than that of a court in a criminal matter...and therefore, as a result of a complaint to the Arkansas State Bar, Bill Clinton was disbarred.
Every state, including the District of Columbia, has a State Bar. It is the sole licensing authority for attorneys who wish to practice law in its jurisdiction (Federal Court is a separate and distinct jurisdiction) but as a practical matter, most lawyers licensed in Federal Court are also licensed in their state court. And generally speaking, the State Bar is subject to the highest court in its jurisdiction, usually a State Supreme Court. In California, with which I am familiar, the California Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics in the State. The State Bar acts as prosecutor against those lawyers violating comprehensive rules of professional conduct, including conflicts of interest, moral turpitude, perjury, etc. As an example, in California, the writing of a bad check by an attorney is sufficient cause to bring him/her before the State Bar. Therefore, any attorney who ignores the ethical requirements of a State Bar does so at their peril. Nothing is worth the loss of a law license and when faced with that prospect, most attorneys are very sober and circumspect.
A case in point would be the goings on at the U.S. Attorneys office in San Diego, where Carole Lam, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Duke Cunningham, was fired by Attorney General Gonzales for apparently political reasons, to wit, political corruption prosecutions that hurt the Republican party. If her successor fails to pursue these corruption cases because of any conflicts of interest, he/she would be subject to an investigation by the State Bar of California were there evidence to indicate violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Inasmuch as many attorneys are involved in these cases, unethical conduct is more difficult to cover up. And employees of the Department of Justice are plum positions that usually require sterling credentials. Few attorneys want to put their license on the line for a politician, unless theirs is a strictly political appointment. Even then, few want to be entangled in a web of deceit that could lead to the demise of their own career. Obstruction of justice would also be a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dusty Foggio of the CIA, Jerry Lewis, the U.S. congressman and many others were being pursued by Carole Lam at the time she was fired. This is to be distinguished by prosecutorial discretion. Again, my point is less to discuss the fine points of what constitutes a violation than to suggest this as an idea with which to apply pressure and insure accountability from lawyers.
Perjury, which can include lying to Congress under oath, is a State Bar offense. My guess is that the District of Columbia State Bar would have a process for investigating unethical conduct, including perjury and conflict of interest. Therefore, justice department lawyers who testified falsely to Congress might be subject to investigation by their State Bar. Likewise, I would imagine that the Texas State Bar, where Alberto Gonzales is licensed, has jurisdiction over his conduct as a lawyer. In fact, all of the lawyers in Washington D.C. have a State Bar to answer to, in addition to the D.C. State Bar if lawyers are practicing law there. Therefore, to the extent any Justice Department lawyer testifies falsely or allows a conflict of interest to interfere with their ethical responsiblities, they might be subject to disbarment or censure. Moral turpitude is also a disbarment offense and is defined differenly by each jurisdiction. Similarly, a United States Attorney is also subject to the rules of professional conduct.
But, keep in mind, (at least this is true in California) one does not need to be practicing law to violate the code of professional responsibility, nor does one need to be in the state, to come within its jurisdiction. Having a law license issued by a State or jurisdiction is sufficient to bring one within its purview.
In California, the process is easily initiated with a complaint by any individual, to the State Bar. Upon receipt of a complaint, the State Bar proceeds with an investigation. And inasmuch as State Supreme Court judges take a dim view of unethical conduct, as do State Bars, it would behoove all of us to scrutinize the conduct of each of these lawyers giving perjured testimony or engaged in conflicts of interest. No lawyer, even a powerful prosecutor such as a federal US Attorney or a Justice Department lawyer, is immune from an ethical code of conduct mandated by their State Bar.
Democrats should not hesitate to use all legal means to bring ethical lapses on the part of lawyers involved in this U.S. Attorney scandal to the attention of the appropriate State Bar. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and George Bush and Dick Cheney, are not lawyers. But there are plenty of others who are. Like Alberto Gonzales.