The DC Bar Is Refusing to Investigate Chief Justice John Roberts Over a $10 Million Scandal

The Existentialist Republic

SubscribeSign in

The DC Bar Is Refusing to Investigate Chief Justice John Roberts Over a $10 Million Scandal<br>His wife took millions from law firms that argue before his Court, and he never stepped aside. The DC Bar won't look into it.

Christopher Armitage<br>Jul 01, 2026

46

10<br>28

Share

Chief Justice John Roberts attends the State of the Union at the U.S. Capitol, February 24, 2026. Credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

In April, I filed an ethics complaint against Chief Justice John Roberts, over more than ten million dollars in commissions his wife received from law firms that argue cases in front of him. Attorneys and retired judges filed complaints of their own, and national outlets covered it. Two months later the DC Bar, the body that disciplines every lawyer licensed in DC, sent their answer: their claim was that they have no jurisdiction over Justice Roberts. Their own rules say otherwise, the law says otherwise, and I am going to show you, point by point, exactly how their answer is wrong.<br>You can find more detailed information in a follow-up piece linked in this text.<br>My complaint asked the DC Bar to do one thing: apply its own conduct rules to a member who is particularly powerful. Roberts has been a member of the DC Bar since 1981, and that membership puts him under the authority of the office that polices DC lawyers, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The forms he signed are personal documents he files as a private individual, and the DC Bar’s own rules bind a member “at all times and in all conduct, both professional and personal,” reaching a violation “whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship.”<br>The Bar Association response came on June 24, 2026, in a letter signed by Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Dru Foster, closing the complaint and giving one reason for it. “In general, this Office does not have jurisdiction to review complaints against members of the judiciary, but this is especially true when it comes to members of the United States Supreme Court.” It cited a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. 351(d). Then it added a key admission. Because the office concluded it had no authority over Roberts, it “did not consider the other factors that may cause us to investigate further such as: (1) whether a complaint is not unfounded on its face or (2) contains allegations which, if true, would constitute a violation of the Attorney’s Oath of Office or the Rules of Professional Conduct.”<br>The whole refusal to investigate depends on one claim: that the DC Bar has no authority over Roberts because he is on the Supreme Court. If that claim is wrong, their refusal to investigate is wrong. Their refusal fails in three separate and distinct ways.<br>Their own rule gives them exactly two ways to close a complaint without asking the accused lawyer to respond. In its words, “except in matters requiring dismissal because the complaint is clearly unfounded on its face or falls outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court,” the accused attorney must be “afforded an opportunity to respond.” Clearly unfounded, or outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and those are the only two.<br>In their letter, the D.C. Bar stated that their refusal was because John Roberts is outside their jurisdiction.<br>So let’s address this, because the answer is clear.<br>First, their own rules. The rule that sets their jurisdiction covers, in its words, “all members of the District of Columbia Bar,” with no carve-out for judges or Justices, and Roberts is one of them. Another rule binds every member “at all times and in all conduct, both professional and personal,” and makes a violation punishable “whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship.” The forms Roberts signed are personal conduct, and the rule covers personal conduct in plain language.<br>Second, the statute they cited. Their letter names 28 U.S.C. 351(d) as the reason they lack jurisdiction. That statute governs the federal judicial-conduct system, the process for disciplining a judge over the conduct of the office, and its own text limits it to circuit, district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. Judicial conduct means the acts a judge performs as a judge, deciding cases and running proceedings. A financial disclosure form is not one of those acts. Every federal filer submits the same form as a private individual under the Ethics in Government Act, and a judge signs it in that private capacity, not from the bench. So the conduct in my complaint is not judicial conduct, and the statute the office cited does not govern it. My complaint is a bar-license matter about a member who filed false sworn forms, and bar discipline is a separate system with its own authority over every member.<br>And there is a clear example of what that statute actually does. When 83...