Lawyer Facing Federal Charges - Bar Consequences
Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal here is to give you the reality of what happens when an attorney faces federal charges - not the sanitized version bar associations publish, not the theoretical framework taught in professional responsibility courses, but the actual truth about how your career gets destroyed while you're still fighting to stay out of prison.
Most lawyers facing federal charges make a fatal assumption. They think the process works sequentially - fight the criminal case first, deal with bar consequences later. This belief is wrong and it will cost them everything. The bar disciplinary system operates on a completely parallel track with different rules, different timelines, and a lower evidentiary standard. You can win your federal case and still lose your license. The system is designed this way intentionally.
Here is what nobody tells you until it's too late: within 10 days of a finding of guilt - not conviction, a finding of guilt - the court clerk must transmit certified proof to every state bar where you hold a license. Before you've processed what happened, before you've filed an appeal, before you've even left the courthouse, the machinery of professional destruction has already started turning. This is the reality Todd Spodek explains to every attorney-client we represent who is facing this nightmare.
The 10-Day Clock You Didnt Know Was Running
The moment a federal court makes a finding of guilt against you, a clock starts that most lawyers dont even know exists. Under the ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, the clerk of any court where you're found guilty must transmit certified proof of that finding to every state bar where your licensed within ten days. Not weeks. Not after sentencing. Ten days.
This isnt about final conviction. Its about finding of guilt. So while your thinking about appeal strategy, while your meeting with your criminal defense team about sentencing mitigation, the bar in every state where you hold a license is already opening a file. There already determining whether your charges constitute a "serious crime." And if they decide they do - and for federal felonies they almost always do - they're already preparing interim suspension paperwork.
Think about what this means practically. You havent been sentenced yet. You havent exhausted your appeals. You havent even been convicted in the final sense. But disciplinary counsel is already drafting an order to strip you of your right to practice law. The bar doesnt wait. It cant afford to - its mandate is protecting the public, not protecting you.
The ABA rules define the process with surgical precision. Upon being advised that a lawyer has been found guilty, disciplinary counsel must make an immediate determination about the nature of the crime. If they conclude it constitutes a "serious crime" - and the definition is broad enough to include almost every federal felony - they prepare an order for interim suspension and forward it directly to the court along with proof of the finding of guilt. The court then places the lawyer on interim suspension regardless of whether an appeal is pending.
What constitutes a "serious crime" under these rules? Any felony. Any lesser crime that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Any crime involving interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, or theft. The category is designed to capture virtually any federal offense that involves dishonesty or harm to others.
Why Your Acquittal Wont Save Your License
Heres were the system gets truly brutal. Stop. Read this next part carefully because it contradicts everything you think you know about how justice works.
The standard of proof in bar proceedings is "clear and convincing evidence" - not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This distinction destroys lawyers who dont understand it. In your criminal case, the government must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats the highest standard in American law. But the bar operates under a lower standard. Clear and convincing means the bar only needs to show its highly probable that your conduct warrants discipline - not that they've eliminated all doubt.
What does this mean practicaly? You can be aquitted of federal charges - the jury can find the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - and the bar can STILL disbar you. The same evidence, evaluated under a lower standard, leads to a different result. Your criminal defense attorney celebrates. Your professional life ends anyway.
This isnt theoretical. It happens. The bar proceedings dont care about your aquital. They care about wheather the evidence shows, by clear and convincing proof, that you engaged in conduct involving moral turpitude or that you otherwise lack the character to practice law. The criminal jury's verdict is basicly irrelevant.
Consider the mechanics of this carefully. In the criminal case, if twelve jurors have reasonable doubt about any element, you walk free. But in the bar proceeding, the question is wheather its highly probable - not certain, just probable - that your conduct violated professional standards. Evidence that creates reasonable doubt in a criminal context can still support a finding of probable misconduct in the bar context. The standards are fundamentaly different measurements of the same underlying facts.
And heres another uncomfortable reality: the bar proceeding uses the certified copy of your judgment of conviction as conclusive evidence that you committed the crime. Not presumptive. Conclusive. Once theres a conviction on record, you cannot relitigate your innocence before the bar court. The only question becomes the nature and extent of discipline. Your defense options narrow dramaticaly.
The Interim Suspension Trap
Lets talk about what happens before you even get to a hearing. Before trial. Before conviction. Before you've had any chance to defend yourself professionaly.
Upon being advised that a lawyer has been found guilty of a crime, disciplinary counsel determines wheather the crime constitutes a "serious crime" warranting immediate interim suspension. If it does - and federal felonies almost always qualify - counsel prepares an order for interim suspension and forwards it directly to the court. Not to you first. To the court.
Heres the thing nobody explains clearly. The court can place you on interim suspension immediatly upon proof of a finding of guilt, regardless of any pending appeal. They dont have to wait. They dont have to give you a full hearing first. The first order of suspension is provisional and temporary, but provisional doesnt mean painless. Provisional means you cant practice law starting right now.
What happens to your clients? You have to notify them your suspended. What happens to your cases? They need to be transfered. What happens to your income? It stops. And this all happens while your still fighting criminal charges, while your still presumed innocent under criminal law, while your still trying to figure out how to pay for your defense.
This is the trap. You need money to fight the criminal case. You need your license to make money. The bar takes your license before the criminal case resolves. Cascade from there. And then—
The financial devastation compounds rapidly. Your clients leave because they need representation and you cant provide it. Your partners or associates may distance themselves to protect the firm's reputation. Your malpractice insurance may have coverage questions. Referral sources dry up. The income stream that funded your life and your legal defense disappears precisely when you need it most.
Meanwhile, the criminal defense costs continue. Expert witnesses. Investigators. Transcripts. Motions. Appeals. Federal criminal defense at a high level costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where does that money come from when you cant practice? Some lawyers burn through savings. Others take out loans against their homes. Some rely on family. The pressure becomes overwhelming - and the pressure itself affects your ability to make good decisions in both the criminal and bar proceedings.
What "Moral Turpitude" Actualy Means (Nobody Knows)
Every state bar's discipline rules reference "moral turpitude" as a basis for disbarment. Its everywhere in the rules. Its mentioned in every case. And heres what Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda says about it: "What constitutes 'moral turpitude' is in the eyes of the beholder."
Let that sink in for a moment. Thats documented. Published. From an actual legal ethics scholar. The standard that determines wheather your entire career ends is, according to experts, completly subjective.
Some crimes are designated by law as involving moral turpitude per se - theft, fraud, crimes of dishonesty. If your federal charges fall into these categories, your facing almost automatic serious discipline. But many federal crimes dont fall neatly into boxes. Tax offenses. Regulatory violations. Campaign finance issues. Conspiracy charges where your role was peripheral.
For these, the bar has to decide wheather moral turpitude was involved. And since nobody actualy agrees on what moral turpitude means, that decision becomes an exercise in prosecutorial discretion dressed up as objective evaluation. Youre at the mercy of how the disciplinary counsel interprets your conduct, how the bar court views your character, and wheather anyone on the panel had a bad morning.
At Spodek Law Group, weve seen cases go both ways on identical facts. The inconsistency isnt a bug in the system - its a feature that gives the bar maximum flexibility to do what it wants.
The historical definition of moral turpitude typically involves conduct that is "inherently base, vile, or depraved" - language that sounds definitive but explains nothing. Courts have struggled for over a century to give this phrase concrete meaning. Some define it as conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. Others focus on wheather the act involves dishonesty or is harmful to others. The circular nature of these definitions gives decision-makers enormous discretion.
What makes this particularly dangerous in federal cases is that many federal crimes are regulatory in nature. Environmental violations. Securities violations. Banking regulations. Health care fraud. These offenses can involve technical violations of complex statutes rather than traditional crimes of dishonesty. Yet the bar can still characterize them as involving moral turpitude if the underlying conduct - regardless of wheather you understood the legal technicalities - suggests dishonest intent.
The Cooperation Trap
Heres something your criminal defense lawyer may not have explained clearly: the cooperation that helps your criminal case can devastate your bar case.
When you cooperate with federal prosecutors - providing information, testifying against others, accepting responsibility - you often do so to obtain a reduced sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The famous 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance. Prosecutors love cooperators. Judges reward cooperation. Your criminal defense attorney rightfully encourages it when appropriate.
But everything you say in that cooperation agreement, everything you admit to, every statement you make to prosecutors becomes evidence. That evidence doesnt stay locked in the criminal case. The bar can obtain it. The bar can use it.
You sat down with prosecutors and admitted to specific acts of misconduct. You provided details about your involvement. You explained your intent, your knowledge, your participation. All of that - given to help yourself criminally - becomes ammunition in the bar proceeding.
The testimonial statements you made to mitigate your criminal exposure become documented proof of the conduct the bar is investigating. Your own words, intended to show remorse and cooperation, become the clearest evidence of exactly what you did wrong. The trap closes.
This is why the strategy for both proceedings must be coordinated from the beginning. What helps in one arena may hurt in the other. Timing matters. Phrasing matters. The decision to cooperate should be made with full awareness of the bar implications, not just the criminal sentencing benefits.
The Multi-State Domino Effect
If you hold licenses in multiple states - and many successfull federal practitioners do - one disbarment triggers investigations everywhere. This isnt paranoia. Its the rules.
Disbarment in one state can trigger investigations and disciplinary action in other states where the lawyer is licensed. Each state opens its own reciprocal discipline proceedings. Each state evaluates your conduct under its own rules. Each state makes its own determination. Your not fighting one bar - your fighting all of them simultaneosly, with different rules, different timelines, and different decision makers.
Picture this scenario: Your home state disbars you after your federal conviction. Now you have to respond to disciplinary complaints in New York, California, Florida, DC - every jurisdiction where you ever got admitted. Each one requires separate filings. Separate hearings. Separate legal representation. The cost multiplies. The stress compounds. And your doing all of this while potentialy serving a federal sentence or dealing with supervised release conditions.
Some lawyers think they can just let licenses lapse in states where there not practicing. Wrong. The bar will still pursue discipline. The disbarment will still go on your record. When you apply for reinstatement in your home state years later, every other jurisdiction's action becomes relevant to wheather you've demonstrated rehabilitation.
New York deserves special attention here. Under New York Judiciary Law Section 90(4)(a), a lawyer convicted of a state felony - or its federal equivalent - is automatically disbarred by operation of law. No hearing. No discretion. No argument. The conviction itself operates as automatic disbarment. If your federal felony is "essentialy similar" to a New York felony, the same rule applies. This is among the harshest regimes in the country.
The reciprocal discipline rules mean that a New York automatic disbarment then becomes grounds for discipline in every other state. The domino effect isnt metaphorical. It is the explicit design of the multi-state disciplinary system.
Madigan, Biden, Girardi: What There Cases Reveal
Let me give you three real examples from the past year that show exactly how this system works in practice.
Michael Madigan - Former Illinois House Speaker, the most powerful politician in the state for decades. Convicted of federal racketeering and bribery in February 2025. Disbarred in November 2025. Nine months from conviction to professional death. He was still fighting appeals when the bar proceeded. The criminal case wasnt resolved in any final sense. Didnt matter. Clock running.
Hunter Biden - Whatever your politics, the legal mechanics are instructive. Convicted of federal gun charges and tax crimes in 2024. Received clemency at the criminal level. Still disbarred in Connecticut in December 2025. Presidential pardon doesnt restore your law license. It doesnt even slow down bar proceedings. The bar exists seperately from the criminal justice system and it proceeds seperately.
Tom Girardi - The "Erin Brockovich" lawyer, once celebrated as a champion of plaintiffs rights. Convicted of wire fraud for stealing from his own clients - including Boeing crash victims. Disbarred. Then in July 2025, at age 86 with worsening dementia, he began serving his federal prison sentence. Age, former reputation, health problems - none of it mattered once the system activated.
These arent obscure cases. These are headlines. And they all demonstrate the same pattern: the bar proceeds on its own track, using its own standards, regardless of what happens in the criminal case.
The Girardi case is particularly instructive about timing. He was disbarred years before he actually reported to federal prison. The bar didnt wait for his criminal appeals to resolve. It didnt wait for his competency to be fully evaluated. It acted based on the conduct and the conviction. By the time he was serving his sentence, the bar matter had long been concluded.
The 5-7 Year Reinstatement Reality
Most US states do not have permanent disbarment. Thats the good news. The bad news is what "not permanent" actualy looks like.
Under ABA model rules, no lawyer may petition for readmission until five years after the effective date of disbarment. Some states require seven years. In New York Second Department, you wait seven years from the entry of the disbarment order before you can even apply.
And applying doesnt mean getting reinstated. You must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that youve been rehabilitated from the misconduct that led to disbarment. You must pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination again. You must demonstrate current learning and ability in the law - which means youve been out of practice for 5-7 years but you need to prove your still competent. You must show current good moral character.
Even after meeting all these requirements, reinstatement isnt guaranteed. The bar can still say no. Some lawyers spend years preparing reinstatement applications only to be denied. Others succeed. The uncertainty is part of the punishment.
And then theres Nevada and Kentucky. These states have permanent disbarment. No reinstatement process. No application after waiting period. Your done forever. If your licensed there, understand what that means before any federal charge resolves.
The reinstatement statistics are sobering. Most applications succeed eventualy, but many are denied on first attempt. The bar looks for genuine rehabilitation - not just waiting out the clock. They want to see what youve done in the years since disbarment. Have you addressed the underlying issues that led to the misconduct? Have you contributed positively to your community? Have you stayed out of trouble? Have you demonstrated that you can be trusted to practice law ethicaly?
If your disbarment followed a federal conviction involving dishonesty or harm to clients, the bar scrutinizes these questions intensely. The burden to demonstrate rehabilitation is heavier the more serious the underlying offense.
What This Means For You Right Now
If your reading this article, your probly facing federal charges or know someone who is. Heres what you need to understand about the next 48 hours, the next month, and the next several years.
The criminal case and the bar case are seperate wars that must be fought simultaneously. Decisions you make in one affect the other. Statements you give to cooperate criminally become evidence the bar uses against you. Defenses that work in court may not work before disciplinary panels. You need representation that understands both battlefields.
Do not assume the bar will wait for your criminal case to resolve. They wont. Do not assume an acquittal protects you. It might not. Do not assume you can handle the bar matter yourself while focusing on the criminal charges. That approach fails consistantly.
Todd Spodek and the team at Spodek Law Group have seen this pattern hundreds of times. Lawyers who understand the dual-track nature of there situation early fare better then those who dont. Time matters. Strategy matters. And understanding that your fighting on two fronts - not one - matters most of all.
The clock started when you learned about the investigation. Every day that passes is a day the bar is also watching, waiting, and preparing. The system wasnt designed to be fair to lawyers facing charges. It was designed to protect the public from lawyers who might be dangerous.
You have an affirmative duty under most state rules to report criminal charges to the bar. Failure to self-report is itself a disciplinary violation. This means you cant hide the charges while you fight them. The bar will know - either from you, from the court clerk, or from news coverage. Transparency is not optional.
The decisions you make in the first weeks after federal charges are filed shape everything that follows. Whether to cooperate. How to respond to bar inquiries. What statements to make publicly. Whether to continue practicing during the investigation. Each choice has implications for both tracks.
How you navigate that system determines wheather you have a career to return to when the criminal matter ends. Call us at 212-300-5196. That window is closing faster then you think.
