Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Lawyers Must Defend the Rule of Law, as the Founders Intended

When lawyers ignore their oaths, the rule of law falters—and democracy is put at risk

Opinion

Lawyers Must Defend the Rule of Law, as the Founders Intended
We the People billboard
Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash

The Declaration of Independence is an explanation for why the colonists wanted their own country, but it's mostly an indictment: a 27-count charging document against King George III for running a lawless government. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people.”

It shouldn't be a surprise that so many of the 56 signers of the Declaration were lawyers. Lawyers swear an oath to the truth, to good faith, and to ethical conduct. In this year of the Declaration's 250th anniversary, it's important to remind lawyers of their oaths and their duty to defend against lawless, unethical behavior. At a time when it seems that more lawyers than ever are breaking faith with their oaths, the Declaration provides a model for how lawyers should respond.


It sounds easy, but it’s not. In the face of repeated acts of dishonesty and bad faith from government lawyers and lawyers representing government officials, too many bar associations, law school deans, law firm leaders, and individual lawyers have avoided calling out this conduct. The common excuse is a desire to avoid being seen as taking sides in a political dispute. But these are not political disputes. These are lawyers, in public and in court, lying and misleading, often in service of illegal and unconstitutional ends.

For example, Rudy Giuliani, once a hero for his actions as mayor of New York City after 9/11, decided in 2021 to mislead a court, lie to the public, and participate in an illegal and unconstitutional scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Other attorneys, including John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, promoted a false legal basis to overturn the election, and pressured the Vice President to exercise powers they knew he did not have. Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), where I am a board member, enlisted the nation's leading ethics lawyers to file complaints against each of these individuals for their conduct. Each has been disciplined: Giuliani and Chesebro disbarred in New York, Eastman disbarred in California.

LDAD has filed more than a dozen complaints, signed by thousands of lawyers and non-lawyers. Nearly all of these complaints have led to an investigation or discipline. But there are exceptions. In Florida, LDAD filed a complaint against then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, detailing a series of unethical and dishonest actions by Ms. Bondi. The complaint was supported by a team of renowned ethics attorneys and other professionals, including an LDAD board member who is a former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. Despite all this, the Florida Bar refused to even open an investigation because the AG was a federal constitutional office-holder, a position that lacked legal authority. The people who signed the Declaration would undoubtedly find this to be an absurd betrayal.

Lawyers have a special responsibility to act. An increasing number of lawyers are doing just that, at least judging by the thousands of attorneys who have signed onto LDAD's ethics complaints. Federal judges are acting, too. This year in Rhode Island, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the government's traditional presumption of good faith “no longer holds” and referred the Justice Department lawyers before her to the court's disciplinary committee.

Ensuring that the bedrock principles of our system of government, including good faith, the truth, and the rule of law, are upheld requires constant vigilance, a clear-eyed view of right and wrong, and a dedication to holding those who breach these principles accountable. The signers of the Declaration envisioned a country founded on the rule of law, not the law of the ruler. They signed their names to it. All of us, especially lawyers, have a responsibility – and an opportunity – to do the same.

Evan Falchuk is a member of the board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.


Read More

Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
A solemn portrait of a woman looking down, bathed in dramatic light and shadow from window blinds, emphasizing solitude and deep thought in monochrome.

After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we must confront postpartum mental illness and ask how to better support mothers before tragedy strikes.

Viktoriya Skorikova/Getty Images

The Questions We Should Be Asking About the Lindsay Clancy Case

Three children are dead.

Nothing that follows should ever diminish that heartbreaking reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less