"I Love You, Sir." The Four Words That Should Cost Todd Blanche His Law License

The Acting Attorney General is breaking the most basic ethics rules and the country is supposed to pretend nothing is wrong

I have spent forty years inside the American legal system. I have seen good prosecutors and bad ones, honest judges and lazy ones, lawyers who fought hard for their clients and lawyers who cut corners. I have never seen the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States openly defy a written ethics directive from his own department’s top ethics adviser and then fire the man who gave it to him. That is where we are.

The Acting Attorney General of the United States is breaking the most basic ethics rule every American lawyer learns in their first year of practice, and the country is supposed to pretend nothing is wrong.

I have been a California trial lawyer since 1986. I have tried more cases to verdict than most lawyers. I have served as a judge pro tem and as a private mediator. Forty years inside courtrooms where one principle is non-negotiable. You cannot defend a client in a criminal case one day and then, from inside the Justice Department, turn around and prosecute that client’s enemies the next. Not after a year. Not after five years. Not ever, in the same matter or anything substantially related to it. That is not a technicality. That is not a gray area. That is the line Todd Blanche walked across and it needs to be called out.

Major news outlets are reporting that the Justice Department’s top ethics lawyer, Joseph Tirrell, sat Blanche down less than two weeks after he was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General in March 2025 and told him plainly, with a printed slide presentation in hand, that he was required to recuse himself from any Justice Department matter involving Donald Trump in his personal capacity. Blanche signed the ethics pledge. Then he kept his hands on the cases anyway. Months later, Tirrell was fired. So were career professionals in the Office of Professional Responsibility who tried to enforce the rules.

Regarding Tirrell’s firing, no reason was given. He received a one-page termination letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi dated July 11, 2025. The letter cited only Article II of the Constitution, which concerns presidential powers, and stated:

“Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately.”

That was the entire stated rationale. No cause. No performance issue. No specific allegation. The letter even misspelled his first name as “JOSPEH” in the header, a detail that tells you how carefully it was prepared. Other career professionals received similar letters.

Fast forward to today and Blanche now runs the entire Department of Justice. And the investigation he refuses to step away from is the one Trump cares about most. You need to understand what is happening, because it is happening in plain sight.

The Conflict Every Law Student Learns To Spot

Walk into any first-year legal ethics class in America and you will learn American Bar Association Model Rule 1.7, Rule 1.9, and Rule 1.11. The principle is simple. If you represented a client in a matter, you cannot later switch sides and work the other side of that same matter, or any substantially related matter, without informed written consent. Government lawyers carry extra weight under Rule 1.11 because the public is the client, and public confidence in clean prosecutions is part of the deal.¹

Todd Blanche was Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer in the federal classified documents case in Florida. He was Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer in the federal January 6 election obstruction case in Washington. He was Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer in the New York hush money trial, the one that ended in thirty-four felony convictions in May 2024. As defense counsel he attacked the prosecutors, the witnesses, and the legitimacy of the cases against his client at every turn.

Today he is the Acting Attorney General of the United States, and his department is investigating those same prosecutors, those same investigators, and the FBI agents who built those files under what his hand-picked appointee Joe diGenova calls a “grand conspiracy” probe. Same factual core. Different chair. Same client interest. New badge. Under Rule 1.11, the prohibition reaches both the same matter and any matter substantially related to it. This conflict is not buried in fine print. It is the textbook example used to teach the rule.

What Recusal Actually Means And Why The Rule Exist

Recusal is not a punishment. Recusal is not a confession. Recusal is the system protecting itself from the appearance and the reality of bias. When a prosecutor has a personal stake in the outcome, every charging decision, every grand jury subpoena, every plea offer, every witness interview becomes legally suspect. Defense lawyers hammer it. Judges scrutinize it. Convictions get reversed.

Jeff Sessions understood this in 2017. He recused himself from the Russia investigation because he had been part of the Trump campaign. Trump tormented him for it. Fired him for it. Never forgave him. Every honest prosecutor in America understood why Sessions did what he did, because the rule is not optional, and the rule is not about loyalty. The rule is about whether the case can stand up in court and whether the public can trust the result.

Blanche chose the opposite path. Asked at his first press conference as Acting Attorney General whether he wanted the job full-time, he answered that he loved working for Trump, called it the greatest honor of a lifetime, and said that if Trump ever moved him to a different role he would say, “Thank you very much. I love you, sir.” Read those words again. The chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States, standing in front of cameras, broadcasting that level of personal devotion to the man whose perceived enemies his department is now investigating. No ethics manual in any state bar in this country survives that statement intact.

Why This Matters To You, Your Kids, And Your Grandkids

You may be reading this and thinking, this is inside baseball, this is a lawyer fight, this does not touch my life. You would be wrong.

The American system of justice runs on one promise. The law applies the same way to everyone, and the people enforcing the law do not get to pick their friends and their targets based on personal loyalty. When that promise breaks, the system stops being a justice system. It becomes a tool.

When the Acting Attorney General refuses to recuse from cases involving the man who used to sign his paychecks as a private client, the message to every U.S. Attorney’s office in the country is loud and clear. The rules are flexible. Loyalty trumps law. Career professionals who object will be fired, the way Tirrell was fired and the way Office of Professional Responsibility career staff were pushed out.

Your kids will inherit whatever justice department we leave behind. So will your grandkids. If the Acting Attorney General can ignore Rule 1.7, Rule 1.9, and Rule 1.11 without consequence, the next administration of either party can do the same, and the one after that, and the one after that. The rules only mean something when they apply at the moment they become inconvenient.

What Needs To Happen Now

Three things need to happen, and they need to happen this month.

Congress needs to subpoena Todd Blanche and ask him, under oath, exactly which Trump-related matters he is participating in, which he has recused from, and on what date each recusal was documented. Benjamin Grimes, the former deputy director of the Justice Department’s Professional Responsibility Advisory Office who now teaches at Columbia Law School, told a major network this week that congressional action is required and the situation is, in his words, untenable. Lawmakers have a duty here. So do you, as the voter who hires them.

State bar authorities, including the New York bar where Blanche has been licensed since 2004, need to open a formal inquiry into whether his continued participation in matters involving his former client violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in that jurisdiction. Bar discipline is independent of the Justice Department. It exists for exactly this reason.

Defense lawyers in every case Blanche is touching need to file motions to dismiss based on prosecutorial conflict of interest. If the Acting Attorney General will not police himself, the courts will have to do it for him. Some of those motions are already being filed. More are coming.

You need to talk about this. Out loud. At dinner. At work. In the comments. Share this article. Send it to the people in your life who think ethics complaints are partisan noise. They are not. They are the only thing standing between this country and a federal law enforcement apparatus that runs on revenge instead of evidence.

I have spent most of my adult life inside the American legal system. I have seen good prosecutors and bad ones, honest judges and lazy ones, lawyers who fought hard for their clients and lawyers who cut corners. I have never seen the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States openly defy a written ethics directive from his own department’s top ethics adviser and then fire the man who gave it to him. That is where we are. That is what is being normalized while you read this.

The rules do not enforce themselves. The Constitution does not enforce itself. Democracy does not enforce itself. You do. Your voice does. Your vote does. Your willingness to refuse to look away does.

Todd Blanche needs to recuse. If he will not recuse, he needs to resign. If he will not resign, Congress needs to act, the bar needs to act, the courts need to act, and you need to demand all of it, loudly, until the people in power remember who they actually work for.

Mitch Jackson, Esq.

---

If this article made you angry, good, that is the point, and Uncensored Objection is where I publish on breaking political stories with the same unfiltered legal honesty. Subscribe free to get the articles in your inbox, or upgrade to premium for full access.

---

1. Here are the three rules and my thoughts:

ABA Model Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest — Current Clients

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Why this applies to Blanche. Rule 1.7(a)(2) is the live provision here. Blanche’s responsibilities to his former client, Donald Trump, and his own personal interest in pleasing the man who appointed him and who can fire him at any moment, create a significant risk that his current representation of the United States as a federal prosecutor will be materially limited. The public is the client now. Trump is a third person with intense personal interest in the outcomes. That is the textbook Rule 1.7(a)(2) setup.

ABA Model Rule 1.9: Duties to Former Clients

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;

unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Why this applies to Blanche. Rule 1.9(c)(1) is the sleeper provision that almost nobody talks about. Blanche spent two years inside Trump’s criminal defense camp. He knows what Trump told him in confidence about the classified documents case, the January 6 case, and the New York hush money case. Rule 1.9(c)(1) says he cannot use any of that confidential information in any direction. He cannot use it to help Trump. He cannot use it to hurt the people Trump now wants prosecuted. Every charging decision he touches in the “grand conspiracy” investigation runs straight into this rule, because the investigation grew directly out of the same cases Blanche defended.

ABA Model Rule 1.11: Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees

(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government:

(1) is subject to Rule 1.9(c); and

(2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.

(b) When a lawyer is disqualified from representation under paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:

(1) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

(2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule.

(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee, may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. As used in this Rule, the term “confidential government information” means information that has been obtained under governmental authority and which, at the time this Rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the public. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.

(d) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee:

(1) is subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9; and

(2) shall not:

(i) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing; or

(ii) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b).

(e) As used in this Rule, the term “matter” includes:

(1) any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties, and

(2) any other matter covered by the conflict of interest rules of the appropriate government agency.

Why this applies to Blanche

Rule 1.11(d) is the bullseye. This is the provision drafted for exactly the situation Blanche is in. He is currently serving as a public officer. Under 1.11(d)(1) he remains subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9, which means every conflict that applied to him in private practice still binds him now. Under 1.11(d)(2)(i) he cannot participate in any matter in which he participated personally and substantially while in private practice, unless the appropriate government agency gives informed written consent. He defended Trump personally and substantially in three criminal matters. The “grand conspiracy” investigation grew directly out of two of them. No government agency has issued any informed written consent. The rule does not require Blanche to be the lead prosecutor or even a hands-on participant. The word is “participate.” Sitting in meetings counts. Approving charging memos counts. Supervising the prosecutors counts. Installing diGenova counts.

The definition of “matter” in subsection (e) closes any escape hatch. It explicitly includes investigations, charges, accusations, and any “particular matter involving a specific party or parties.” The party here is Donald Trump’s perceived enemies, and the matter is the conspiracy theory built on top of the very prosecutions Blanche defended Trump against.

How the Three Rules Stack Against Blanche

These rules do not work in isolation. They are layered, and the layering is what makes the conflict airtight.

Rule 1.7 says he has a current conflict because his loyalty to Trump and his own career interests materially limit his ability to represent the United States as a federal prosecutor.

Rule 1.9 says he cannot work the other side of any matter substantially related to his former representation of Trump, and he cannot use the confidential information he learned defending Trump in any direction.

Rule 1.11 says that as a former private lawyer now serving in government, every restriction in Rules 1.7 and 1.9 still binds him, and he is specifically barred from participating in any matter in which he personally and substantially participated as Trump’s defense counsel.

Three separate rules. Three independent prohibitions. Each one alone is enough to require recusal. Together they form a wall.

The only escape valve in any of these rules is informed written consent from the appropriate government agency, and even that does not cure Rule 1.9(c)’s prohibition on using confidential information acquired during the prior representation. No such written consent has been disclosed to the public. The DOJ spokesperson said only that Blanche is recused from “many cases” without identifying any, and confirmed last week that he had not recused from the Brennan investigation. That is not how informed written consent works. That is how a cover story works.

A note on which state’s version applies. ABA Model Rules are exactly that, models. Each state adopts its own version. Blanche is licensed in New York, so the New York Rules of Professional Conduct govern his discipline. New York has adopted versions of all three rules that track the ABA Model Rules closely, with some technical differences that do not change the analysis here. The DOJ also has its own internal regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 that mirror the conflict principles and explicitly prohibit a DOJ employee from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation. Blanche signed an ethics pledge acknowledging that regulation when he was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General in March 2025.