The Florida Bar's Rejection of the Percival Complaint Was Correct Because Attorneys Have a Right to Criticize Judicial Overreach
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "Florida Bar Rejects Leftist Scheme To Investigate DHS Attorney." August 31, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues the Florida Bar made the right call by refusing to investigate a Trump administration lawyer who criticized judges on social media, because criticizing judges isn't misconduct and the complaint was really just a political attack from left-leaning groups trying to silence conservative lawyers. The piece frames this as part of a bigger pattern of the left using bar complaints as a weapon against attorneys who work for Republican causes.
Conclusion
The Florida Bar was right to dismiss the leftist groups' complaint against DHS General Counsel James Percival, because his criticism of 'rogue judges' did not constitute professional misconduct and the complaint itself was part of a politically motivated 'lawfare' campaign against conservative attorneys.
Premises
- Percival's X posts merely described and criticized judges' allegedly overreaching actions in immigration cases that conflicted with the administration's policy agenda.
- The Florida Bar itself stated it does not investigate sitting constitutional officers and that doing so could encroach on federal authority.
- Florida AG James Uthmeier argued that criticizing judicial decisions, even sharply, does not violate bar rules, and that attorneys should not be silenced for pointing out when courts exceed their authority.
- The complaint was filed by left-leaning groups (Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy) and former judges, suggesting a partisan motive rather than a genuine ethics concern.
- This complaint fits a broader pattern of the left targeting conservative-aligned lawyers (e.g., John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Ken Paxton) through bar complaints and professional discipline, characterized by the author as 'lawfare' or 'barfare.'
- Judicial integrity does not require suppressing disagreement or criticism from attorneys, especially when judges' rulings are seen as producing 'destructive results.'
Assumptions
- Criticizing judges' rulings as 'rogue' or overreaching is categorically different from making false or reckless accusations that could constitute professional misconduct.
- The motivations of the complainants (being left-leaning) inherently undermine the legitimacy or merit of their complaint.
- The Florida Bar's procedural rationale (not investigating sitting officers) is the same as substantively agreeing Percival did nothing wrong.
- Attorneys' free speech rights to criticize judges take precedence over concerns that such criticism could increase risks to judicial safety or public trust in courts.
- The characterization of the judges as 'rogue' is an accurate description of their rulings rather than a contested political framing.