Report: Bondi Accused Of ‘Serious Professional Misconduct’

Attorney General Pam Bondi is accused of “serious professional misconduct” in a Florida Bar complaint.

According to a report from The Miami Herald, in the complaint the group alleges Bondi has breached ethical duties in her current role and that “serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice” has been carried out by the attorney general, the Herald reported.

Bondi is from Florida and previously served as the Sunshine State’s first female attorney general. A “Pamela Jo Bondi” is listed as a member of the Florida Bar “in Good Standing.”

A few months ago, Democrats pressed Bondi amid her confirmation hearing over her ability to push back against Trump, who had repeatedly stated he would come for his enemies and that he has the “absolute right” to do what he wants with her department.

Bondi is also stated in the complaint to have “sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of ‘zealous advocacy,’” according to the Herald.

In a statement, Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle told the Herald that “the Florida Bar has twice rejected performative attempts by these out-of-state lawyers to weaponize the bar complaint process against AG Bondi.”

Bondi has faced an onslaught of criticism from Democrat lawmakers and progressive groups since being confirmed as the Trump administration’s Attorney General.

Last month, the Justice Department pointed out the leftist bias of the American Bar Association (ABA) and ordered that it will bo longer have access to non-public information, including bar records.

The ABA uses a ratings process in which their Standing Committee rates each nominee “Well Qualified,” “Qualified” or “Not Qualified.” “Unanimous committee ratings appear as a single rating. In other situations, the rating from the majority or substantial majority (2/3 or more of those voting) of the Committee is recorded first, followed by the rating or ratings of a minority of the Committee. The majority rating is the rating of the committee,” the ABA notes on its website.

The Daily Wire continues:

“The ABA has a history of taking liberal positions on issues including abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and the Second Amendment,” National Review stated in 2019. “The organization’s ideological bias has long tainted its ratings of judicial nominees. An entire book on the subject was written as early as 1965, Joel B. Grossman’s Lawyers and Judges: The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection.”

Of the 15 members on the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary in 2019, five donated to Barack Obama’s campaign, three to that of Hillary Clinton, and none to the three Republican nominees between 2008-2016. Incredibly, the ABA gave a minority “Not Qualified” rating to iconic Judge Robert Bork and other conservative legal scholars, including Richard A. Posner, Edith H. Jones, and William H. Pryor, among others.

“For several decades, the American Bar Association has received special treatment and enjoyed special access to judicial nominees,” Bondi wrote in a letter to ABA President William Bay. “In some administrations, the ABA received notice of nominees before a nomination was announced to the public. Some administrations would even decide whether to nominate an individual based on a rating assigned by the ABA.”