Jeanine Pirro: DC Bar Complaint Filed After Grand Jury No-Bills Frivolous Charges

• The Legal Accountability Center filed a bar complaint against Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for D.C., and two subordinates, Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden.
• The complaint alleges ethical breaches related to an attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers for a video advising service members on unlawful orders.
• A grand jury returned a 'no-bill,' declining to pursue charges against Sens. Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, and four House Democrats.
• The complaint argues Pirro's directive was 'unwarranted, frivolous,' and lacked probable cause, violating rules of professional conduct.
• The filing emphasizes a prosecutor's duty to exercise independent legal judgment rather than using the criminal justice system for political demands.

Prosecutors bear a unique responsibility to ensure that legal actions are grounded in fact and law, not political motivations.

The Legal Accountability Center recently lodged a formal bar complaint against Jeanine Pirro, who serves as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, along with two of her subordinates, Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden. The complaint, filed on Tuesday, centers on an alleged ethical breach stemming from the office's efforts to secure indictments against six Democratic lawmakers. These lawmakers had appeared in a video that advised active-duty service members of their legal obligation to disregard unlawful orders.

This action by Pirro's office involved presenting the case to a grand jury, which ultimately declined to issue an indictment, returning a 'no-bill.' The lawmakers targeted included Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, alongside four members of the House of Representatives. The complaint highlights that the Department of Justice was unable to specify any particular statute that these individuals had supposedly violated through their participation in the video.

The core of the grievance, submitted to the New York grievance committee where Jeanine Pirro holds her license, asserts that her directive to pursue this case was 'unwarranted, frivolous, and would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure' the Democratic lawmakers. It further contends that as a government prosecutor, Pirro either knew or should have known that the proposed charges lacked any legal foundation. This stance aligns with established rules of professional conduct that prohibit frivolous filings.

Adding to the concerns, career prosecutors within Pirro's own office reportedly expressed reluctance to engage with the case. In response, Pirro brought in Steven Vandervelden, described as a retired Westchester hand, from a dance photography studio to manage the presentation to the grand jury. Despite this, the grand jury ultimately rejected the proposed charges, underscoring the perceived lack of merit in the prosecution's efforts.

This complaint underscores the critical importance of prosecutors adhering strictly to rules of professional conduct, particularly concerning the pursuit of charges without probable cause. Prosecutors bear a unique responsibility to ensure that legal actions are grounded in fact and law, not political motivations. The rules governing their conduct specifically address the special duty not to initiate or pursue charges when there is no basis for probable cause.

Michael Teter, co-founder of the Legal Accountability Center, articulated this principle, stating that prosecutors are bound by 'an obligation to exercise independent legal judgment rather than use the criminal justice system to carry out a president’s political demands.' This sentiment highlights the ethical boundaries that must guide government lawyers, emphasizing their role as impartial arbiters of justice rather than instruments of political will.

The bar complaint against Jeanine Pirro and her deputies serves as a significant reminder of the accountability mechanisms in place for legal professionals, especially those in positions of public trust. The DC grand jury's no-bill decision in the attempted indictment of the lawmakers reinforces the judiciary's role as a check on potentially overzealous or politically motivated prosecutions. This incident highlights the potential for bar complaints to address instances where prosecutorial actions appear to deviate from ethical standards.

Ultimately, this situation underscores the imperative for government lawyers to maintain strict adherence to professional conduct rules, particularly regarding frivolous filings and the duty to exercise independent legal judgment free from political influence. It acts as a cautionary tale, illustrating the ethical boundaries in pursuing legal action and the potential consequences, such as a bar complaint, when probable cause is demonstrably absent.

This case underscores the critical importance for prosecutors and government lawyers to adhere strictly to rules of professional conduct, particularly regarding frivolous filings and the duty to exercise independent legal judgment free from political influence. It serves as a cautionary tale regarding the ethical boundaries in pursuing legal action and the potential for bar complaints when probable cause is lacking.

Source: Original reporting on a legal ethics complaint.