This is concerning, but, frighteningly enough, not surprising. As Ethics Alarms has noted many times, the legal profession has been among the critical institutions most thoroughly corrupted, indeed lobotomized, by partisan bias and Trump Derangement. As if that wasn’t bad enough, I am also getting reports from various quarters about the deep corruption in many state bar associations. This is especially problematic for me, as bar associations are a significant market for my ethics training services (if they ares sufficiently corrupt, such organizations tend to say “We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics training!”). Well, the Connecticut Bar is in the minority of bar associations that have never sought my wisdom, so I am unencumbered by conflicts of interest.

The Bar’s leadership sent out a stunningly unethical warning to its members vaguely threatening them if they dare to excessively criticize the eminently criticizable Manhattan trial and conviction of Donald Trump. It vaguely states that such criticism has “no place in the public discourse” and worse, calls on members to support the clear abortion of legal process under the gavel of Judge Merchan.

Some comments, the letter darkly implies, will be viewed (by the Bar, apparently) as “cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.” Connecticut already has in its ethics rules one of the worst and most easily abused rules from the ABA’s Model Rules, 8.2, which says that it is a professional ethics violation to “make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or a magistrate, or of a candidate for appointment to judicial or legal office.” This has been used in other jurisdictions to sanction lawyers who, for example, opine that a ruling “is incomprehensible unless the fix was in,” a statement that could easily be made about Alvin Bragg’s “Get Trump!” disgrace.

So according to the Connecticut Bar, lawyers should not criticize Judge Juan Merchan for refusing to recuse from the case despite his making political contributions to Joe Biden and watching his Democratic fundraiser daughter profit from his involvement in the case. The Bar’s letter disingenuously assures recipients that they can sort-of criticize (the legal interpretations and the process as it unfolded) but impugning the ethics of a judge or the prosecutor’s motives behind these cases is inappropriate, dangerous and could spark violence.

Oooh, beware that “dangerous rhetoric!” (And who defines that category, other than the very people who want to stifle criticism?) If there is a smoking gun in the Bar’s unethical attack on free speech and legal analysis—actually, there are several—that classic progressive muzzle on dissent is it. It might provoke violence to tell the truth: can’t have that. Best to keep the proles in the dark.

Professor Turley is properly disgusted, but like me, he appreciates the transparency of the “bias makes you stupid” display. He writes, “Ironically, the letter only reinforces the [public] view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda. These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to ‘sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.’ Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecution like the one in Manhattan.”

Yes, “many believe” this because that is what’s happening. Turley believes it, as his previous posts have made clear. (The professor drives me nuts when he equivocates like this.) Turley also notes that…

…the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecutions and not the continued attacks on conservative jurists like Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published warnings about those calling conservative justices profanities, attacking their religion, or labeling them “partisan hacks” or other even “insurrectionist sympathizers.” Liberal activists have been calling for stopping conservative jurists “by any means necessary.”

In Connecticut, Sen. Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative justices to rule correctly or face “seismic changes.” Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Sunday that the Supreme Court was “becoming brazenly corrupt and brazenly political.” That did not appear to worry the bar. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Bingo. A revealing and damning double standard. What’s going on here? It couldn’t be more obvious. The legal profession, at least too much of it, has abandoned professionalism for bias and partisanship.

To save democracy, however, so its okay!