When it comes to attorney bar disciplinary action, your ideology matters. If you’re a progressive, far more leniency is given. If you’re conservative, you need to be on the straight and narrow—and even then, that often does not insulate you. In the modern bipolar political system, there are two sides and two sets of rules.
It is no secret that the further down you get into both federal and state government, those who populate government offices tend to lean progressive. For instance, a study of the New York Department of Education found that 79% of their employees voted Democratic.
While this information is hard to prove in most instances—as many states prohibit inquiring into an employee’s political affiliation—there are clues. The biggest clues come from the actions of the state agencies themselves. And, there is no example more clear than recent actions of the New York Attorney Grievance Committee.
On behalf of the Center to Advance Security in America—a government watchdog organization—I filed a bar complaint against New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill after two eyebrow raising events occurred in late 2025 and in 2026.
First, during the New Jersey gubernatorial debate, she accused her opponent of mass homicide. This accusation was so salacious that even PolitiFact and the New Jersey Globe had to go on record to fact check her, both of which concluded that there was no truth to her accusation. It is defamation to knowingly make a false statement about an individual to the public with the purpose of causing damage to the individual.
Second, as governor, she actively set up a database to impede ICE in enforcing this country’s immigration laws. She encouraged citizens to get their phones out and report ICE activity and report it to the database. The plan would be to then alert people in the area to help them avoid enforcement. It is a violation of federal criminal law to harbor or attempt to conceal illegal immigrants.
Because both of these actions appeared to be “illegal,” a bar complaint asking the New York Attorney Grievance Committee to investigate seemed to be a logical next step. However, the Committee’s response was that it “is not the appropriate forum to determine, in the first instance, if Governor Sherrill has committed federal crimes or is liable for defamation.” Removing the legalese, this means they would not consider the matter because no court had already convicted her or issued a judgment against her.
This is news to Rudy Giuliani, however. The Grievance Committee investigated Giuliani for “false and misleading statements” about voting during the 2020 election. These situations seemed similar. Arguably they were less severe than accusing someone of being a mass murderer.
But, unlike with Sherrill, the Grievance Committee did not pass on that disciplinary investigation. It instead sought and obtained discipline against Giuliani—eventually stripping him of his license. And, Giuliani—just like Sherrill—had never had a criminal or civil judgment against him. The Committee took the initiative all on its own.
New York’s rules are clear about this as well. The law says there is “no requirement of a criminal conviction” to pursue discipline. The same applies to civil judgments like defamation.
Yet, when the decision was appealed—pointing out these facts—the Grievance Committee simply stated that “there is no new evidence warranting further investigation.”
Put plainly: there was nothing stopping the Grievance Commission from at least investigating Sherrill. Both law and precedent say it can, and probably should. The Commission just chose not to. And it did not even take care to come up with a legally justified reason.
Unfortunately, this outcome was all too predictable. Even application of the law seems to be a thing of the past. Lawfare is the new normal. If you are on the left side of the partisan divide, you are insulated. If you are on the right, you are always at risk of losing your livelihood and career.
Curtis Schube is the Director of Research and Policy at Center to Advance Security in America.