The Florida Bar declined to investigate James Percival, the General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), after 128 former judges filed a complaint against him. Percival responded by urging the Bar to scrutinize the signers who are members of the Florida Bar, accusing them of abusing the disciplinary process for political purposes.
In a statement, the Florida Bar confirmed it does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office. This policy was cited by Percival as a reason the complaint against him should have been dismissed outright.
Percival called the judges' complaint frivolous, coining the term “Bar-fare” to describe what he alleges is a tactic of weaponizing professional authority for political ends. He compared the complaint to past controversies, including the 2020 letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials questioning the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The complaint originated from Percival’s “Worst of the Worst Judges” series, which identified judges he alleged exhibited activist tendencies. The Florida Bar’s decision not to pursue the complaint followed its established policy on sitting presidential appointees, a stance Percival argued the complainants should have anticipated.
Percival’s Response and Rationale
Percival framed the judges’ complaint as part of a broader pattern he described as left-leaning political tactics, citing historical examples where he claims expertise was used to advance partisan agendas. He emphasized that the Florida Bar’s rules were clear, and the complainants were aware their filing was unlikely to succeed.
The DHS has not publicly commented beyond Percival’s statements, and the Florida Bar has not issued further clarification on its decision-making process regarding complaints against sitting officials.
Background: The ‘Worst of the Worst Judges’ Series
Percival’s series, titled “Worst of the Worst Judges”, has drawn significant attention from legal and political observers. The list purportedly highlights judges Percival alleges have overstepped their authority or demonstrated bias in rulings. While the specific judges named have not been disclosed in the available reporting, the series has sparked debate over judicial activism and the role of executive branch officials in critiquing the judiciary.
Florida Bar’s Policy on Investigations
The Florida Bar’s position—that it does not investigate sitting presidential appointees—aligns with longstanding legal interpretations regarding the separation of powers. This policy has been applied in past cases, including a complaint against former Attorney General Pam Bondi, which was also dismissed under similar circumstances.
Reactions and Broader Implications
Percival’s counter-move has intensified discussions about the boundaries of professional accountability for former judges and the appropriate channels for addressing perceived judicial misconduct. Critics of Percival’s approach argue that his response deflects scrutiny from the substance of the complaint, while supporters contend that the complaint itself was an attempt to intimidate or silence a government official for exercising free speech.
The episode underscores ongoing tensions between executive authority, judicial independence, and political accountability in the U.S. legal system.