Watchdog group asks California bar to investigate conduct of two DOJ attorneys in immigration cases

A nonprofit watchdog group is asking the State Bar of California to investigate two assistant U.S. attorneys who handle immigration cases. That push comes as a number of state bar agencies, including California’s, argue the federal government is attempting to shield its lawyers from accountability.

The Legal Accountability Center on Thursday sent two letters to the State Bar of California alleging Christopher Jones, in California’s Central District, and Jonathan Yu, in the Eastern District, violated rules governing the conduct of lawyers practicing law in the state.

According to those letters, Jones violated professional conduct rules in the prosecution of a man accused of assaulting a federal officer. The Department of Justice charged the man, who had been shot by an ICE officer, in a case that a judge later dismissed with prejudice while finding the federal government violated the man’s rights to due process.

Another letter accuses Yu of missing several deadlines while handling an immigration case against a man who’d been detained after failing to appear on a traffic ticket. A federal judge levied sanctions against Yu for his repeated violations of court orders.

The State Bar has the power to investigate attorneys licensed in California and impose disciplinary actions if violations are found. More serious penalties such as disbarment and license suspension need approval by the California Supreme Court.

The California State Bar said in an emailed statement that it cannot disclose pending complaints or investigations into attorneys, and that it doesn’t track disciplinary actions against federal prosecutors, specifically.

The U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern and Central districts have not yet responded to requests for comment.

Michael Teter, the executive director of the Legal Accountability Center, said these allegations “represent a greater concern, which is the administration’s disregard for the rule of law.”

“When these lawyers are representing the administration and the government, they are doing so in a way that disregards the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence,” Teter said. “And in this instance, they weren't concerned with court orders and what courts were directing them to do with regards to the people whose lives they were trying to upend.”

Federal officials want protection from state discipline

In March, the federal government issued a proposed rule preventing current or former DOJ lawyers from participating in investigations initiated by state bar authorities until after the department reviews the allegations. The rule says the department “shall request” the state bar disciplinary authority to suspend any investigations until the department has finished its review.

Justice Department officials say in the March 2026 filing that they need the new rule because “over the past several years, political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process.” While the proposed rule acknowledges that attorneys practicing in states must meet individual states’ ethics standards, it says enforcement of those standards for federal attorneys should fall on the DOJ. Otherwise, the filing states: “This unprecedented weaponization of the State bar complaint process risks chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers.”

The State Bar of California opposes this proposed rule, arguing in public comments that it is “unprecedented, unnecessary, inappropriate, and lacks both congressional and constitutional authority.” Federal lawyers are subject to the rules of conduct wherever they are licensed to practice, the bar wrote, and the order would “improperly intrude on the State Bar’s authority to regulate, investigate, and pursue discipline for all attorneys licensed or otherwise authorized to practice in California.” The American Bar Association also opposes the rule, as do several legal organizations including the Utah State Bar, the National Organization of Bar Counsel and a coalition of 22 state attorneys general.

What the letters say about the contested prosecutions

Jones, who was admitted to the California bar in 2022, handled the prosecution of Carlitos Ricardo Parias.

Parias, who streamed ICE arrests on social media as Richard LA, was shot by an ICE officer in South L.A. during a confrontation on Oct. 21, 2025. He’s also the man who reported finding worms in the drinking water at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and is seen in a widely circulated video.

While Parias was recovering from the gunshot wound to the left arm, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint accusing him of assaulting a federal officer with his car, a charge that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the charges against Parias last December, citing two key reasons in his decision:

• The government denied Parias access to legal counsel while he was detained at Adelanto.
• The government failed to provide the defense with key evidence, including exculpatory body camera footage, that would help Parias’ defense until court-ordered deadlines had passed.
  

The U.S. Attorney’s office challenged that decision in an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In its request for a State Bar investigation into Jones’ handling of the case, the Legal Accountability Center called the prosecution “a sham.”

The request, addressed to the California bar’s Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona, argues Jones violated California’s rules for lawyer conduct in three ways: Jones prosecuted an assault charge against Parias that was not supported by probable cause, he failed to correct an allegedly false statement by a Homeland Security investigations special agent that was included in the initial complaint against Parias, and he failed to disclose evidence to the defense.

Details on the attorneys named in the complaints

Yu, who was admitted to the California bar in 2013, handled the immigration case against Eblis Alexander Yanez Tovar.

Tovar was pulled over on Feb. 26, 2026, for failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket and sent to a detention center in Kern County, California.

On April 2, the court ordered his release, finding that his due process rights were violated because he was detained without a notice or hearing. The court ordered Yu to file paperwork showing Tovar was released and that his documents, a passport and license, were returned to him. The April 6 deadline to comply with that order came and went without Yu filing those documents.

Without his passport or license, Tovar’s attorney argued he was “essentially stranded” in Kern County while asking the court to enforce its deadlines.

Yu missed another deadline on April 10, according to the request, so the court sanctioned him $250.

Eric Grant, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, asked the court to reconsider the penalty and to impose the sanction on his office generally, or Grant specifically.

Yu was not at fault for missing the deadlines, Grant said, because of the extraordinary workload in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the face of a wave of habeas corpus petitions from people challenging the legality of their detention.

“The strain of the system is not keeping up with the overwhelming burden,” Grant wrote, while arguing that the entire U.S. Attorney’s office bears responsibility for missing the deadline.

Troy Nunley, the Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, granted that request, although the judge noted that Yu missed multiple deadlines in the case.

“Even in the face of significant workload pressures, counsel has an obligation to ensure that court directives are timely and fully observed,” Nunley’s response said. “Compliance with court orders is not optional and must be prioritized.”

The Legal Accountability Center wrote in its letter seeking the State Bar investigation that Yu’s caseload “does not absolve him of his responsibilities to the court” and to Tovar. They also cite previous State Bar cases that have determined a heavy caseload does not excuse or mitigate an attorney's obligations to follow the court orders.

Teter told LAist that the volume of habeas corpus petitions reflects the government’s policy of holding more people in detention while their immigration cases unfold. More often than not, judges are siding with the petitioners who claim their detention is illegal.

“It's not a defense to say, ‘I have so many cases that I just couldn't keep up with the court orders that required me to release somebody or release their passport and documents,’” Teter said. “That's not an excuse.”

“If the Department of Justice, therefore, can't handle the number of habeas petitions being filed without having lawyers disregard court orders and their ethical obligations,” he said, “then it's incumbent upon the administration to shift their policy and tactics so that they're not holding these people illegally.”