Rule Of Law Requires Gov’t Engagement With Bar, Not Retreat

By Muhammad U. Faridi, Immediate Past President of the New York City Bar Association

The following op-ed was published by Law360 on June 17, 2026

On the morning of May 4, I received a call from a senior U.S. Department of Justice official informing me that, pursuant to a DOJ directive, federal prosecutors would be withdrawing from a speaking engagement at the New York City Bar Association’s annual White Collar Crime Conference.

The recent directive is in line with a DOJ memorandum from 2025 that barred DOJ lawyers, in their official capacity, from speaking at, attending or otherwise participating in events sponsored by the American Bar Association.[1] More than disappointing, the recent trend is troubling in what it suggests about the current moment in American legal culture.

First, a few words about the New York City Bar Association. The association was founded in 1870 during the era of Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed, when corruption and political patronage had deeply eroded public confidence in New York’s governing institutions.[2] The lawyers who formed the City Bar believed that the legal profession carried obligations extending beyond private advocacy or partisan loyalty, and that courts, prosecutors and democratic institutions required independent professional organizations willing to defend the integrity of the legal system itself, especially during moments of political strain.

Like many bar associations, the City Bar also seeks to facilitate dialogue among professionals and strengthen the ties between the legal profession and the public. The White Collar Crime Conference is part of that effort. It serves as a platform for the private bar to hear directly from government lawyers about the priorities, concerns and challenges facing law enforcement officials. It is also an opportunity for prosecutors and regulators to hear from defense lawyers and the broader legal community about how enforcement decisions are experienced outside government.

These types of exchanges bolster the administration of justice. They create understanding where there might otherwise be caricature. They foster professional relationships that outlast political cycles. And they reinforce the principle that lawyers who occupy different roles within the system nevertheless share a common responsibility to uphold the integrity of our legal framework.

I saw the value of that kind of exchange early in my own career.

As a junior lawyer working on death penalty cases, I served on the City Bar’s Capital Punishment Committee. During that time, the committee organized an event featuring a senior DOJ official involved in the federal death penalty review process. The room was packed with abolitionist defense lawyers. The discussion was led by Richard Jasper and Russell Neufeld — deans of the criminal defense bar — who subjected the government’s policies to difficult and sustained questioning.

No one confused participation with endorsement. No one expected consensus. But everyone understood the importance of the exercise itself. Government officials explained and defended the exercise of immense state power before an audience deeply skeptical of the underlying policy. Defense lawyers engaged seriously with the government’s reasoning. The profession learned from the exchange. So did the public.

These conversations are not always comfortable. But they serve the public good because they reinforce a culture in which power is expected to explain itself rather than avoid scrutiny altogether.

In recent months, the City Bar has spoken forcefully about what it views as growing threats to foundational rule-of-law principles. Reasonable people can disagree with those positions. Government officials are free to criticize them publicly.

But disagreement with the views of bar associations should not cause government lawyers to retreat from difficult conversations about controversial issues. Disengagement by government lawyers disserves the bar, government lawyers themselves and, ultimately, the administration of justice. The legal profession has always depended upon rigorous exchange across lines of disagreement.

The withdrawal from national and local bar conferences will not determine the future of the rule of law in the U.S. But the broader instinct toward disengagement from independent legal institutions should concern the public and lawyers across the political spectrum. Constitutional democracy relies upon a legal culture confident enough to engage criticism rather than avoid it.

[1] Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General on Engagement with the American Bar Association to available at https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1396116/dl?inline; see also Devlin Barrett, Justice Dept. Bars Its Lawyers From American Bar Association Functions, N.Y. Times (Apr. 9, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/us/politics/justice-dept-bars-its-lawyers-from-american-bar-association-functions.html.

[2] Press Release, N.Y. City Bar, New York City Bar Association Marks 150th Anniversary, available at https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/new-york-city-bar-association-marks-150th-anniversary/.

Muhammad U. Faridi is a partner at Linklaters LLP and the immediate past president of the New York City Bar Association.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.