Wayne Detring makes what should be a statement of the obvious in his Letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters page.

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so.

Granted, that’s not strictly binding on lawyers, but it is a strong statement of what’s not acceptable for lawyers to do.

Detring cited further:

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing or submitting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to “cause unnecessary delay.” Rule 11 also provides a process for sanctioning violators.

That Rule is binding on lawyers.  With that background, he continued:

President Biden (Mr Garland’s client) publicly stated he and his staff were “unable to find the legal authority” for the executive order despite checking multiple times. He also admitted he couldn’t in good faith defend the order. But, the president said, “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give additional time” for him to enforce his illegal order.

And the case:

Ordinary practicing attorneys would be in grave danger of sanctions for filing a pleading knowingly unsupported by law or fact, and by admittedly filing the pleading for the purpose of delay. The US attorney general should be no exception. In fact, those in power should be held to a stricter standard.

However, the only facility for bringing AG Garland to justice under Rule 11 (or the ABA’s Rule 3.1) is the Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress. Those worthies are unlikely to worry about the misbehaviors of one of their own (and neither have been Republicans in their turn).

Sadly, rather than stricter standards, our Government personages are held to lesser standards than the rest of us. Which puts it on the rest of us to rectify the matter ourselves in 2022 and 2024.