Trump's Legal Team Keeps Losing Their Licenses Over Him

Professor Daniel Z. Epstein joins a list of Trump lawyers who have lost their standing for representing him. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams barred him from practicing in the Southern District of Florida for one year. She also referred a second Trump attorney, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for possible discipline. Both sanctions come from Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, a case filed by a sitting president against agencies led by his own appointees.

Epstein carries a longer history with Trump than this single case suggests. He served as one of Trump's attorneys in the IRS lawsuit, working alongside Brito to secure the settlement Williams rejected. His relationship with Trump began during the first term, when he held the titles of senior associate counsel and special assistant to the president inside the White House. He later represented Trump in a separate lawsuit against the Department of Justice over the investigation into ties between the 2016 campaign and Russia, and again during the 2022 FBI search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump nominated him for a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2019, a nomination the Senate never confirmed. Epstein currently serves as vice president at America First Legal, and FIU named him interim dean of its College of Law in June, a position he starts in August. The appointment followed years teaching at St. Thomas University College of Law and drew pushback from FIU faculty over his political ties and how he landed the role outside the school's normal search process. The one-year restriction Williams placed on his ability to practice in her district now sits alongside that new title.

The case that put Epstein in front of Williams traces back further than his own involvement. Before Epstein or Brito entered the picture, the lawsuit's origin sat in a theft carried out years earlier, one that gave Trump a legitimate grievance to bring into court in the first place.

Charles Littlejohn, a former IRS contractor, stole years of Trump's tax records and gave them to the New York Times. He then leaked records belonging to thousands of other wealthy Americans to ProPublica. A federal judge sentenced him to five years in prison, the statutory maximum, and called the leak the biggest heist in IRS history.

Trump filed suit in January, joined by his sons Donald Jr. and Eric and the Trump Organization, after the standard two-year filing window for this kind of claim had closed. No government lawyer entered an appearance during the 109 days the case remained active. In May, the parties dismissed the suit and announced a settlement instead. No opposing side ever appeared to negotiate against, leaving the term "settlement" without a clear basis.

The settlement includes a permanent bar on the IRS pursuing tax claims against Trump, his sons, and their affiliated companies. The agreement also called for a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to compensate people who alleged government mistreatment, though they were not parties to Trump's lawsuit. The money's origin deserves attention. The fund draws from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, the same reserve ordinarily used to pay legitimate settlements against the government. Ordinary taxpayers, few of whom filed a tax return interesting enough to leak, would finance payouts for a grievance category the settlement never defines in statute.

Williams rejected the arrangement entirely. In a 56-page order, she found the case brought for an improper purpose, seeking the appearance of judicial legitimacy for an arrangement lacking real basis in law. She went further, writing it was risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties. Trump sued agencies led by his own appointees, represented by a Justice Department under the same appointees, seeking billions from a fund he oversees directly. Trump's lawyers argued Williams lost jurisdiction the moment the case got dropped. She rejected the argument, ruling a party who drops a lawsuit midstream avoids accountability rather than genuinely settling, unable to simply "get off scot free". She barred every party from calling the arrangement a settlement in official proceedings going forward.

Epstein and Brito join a list of Trump lawyers who face sanction for representing him. Rudy Giuliani lost his law license in New York and Washington, D.C. A federal jury ordered him to pay roughly $148 million to two Georgia election workers he defamed. Sidney Powell pleaded guilty in the Georgia election interference case. A judge sentenced her to six years of probation and ordered restitution. Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty in the same case. A Colorado judge had already censured her before the plea, then suspended her law license for three years afterward. Kenneth Chesebro, the architect of the fake elector scheme, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was later disbarred in New York because of the conviction. Michael Cohen went to federal prison and was disbarred in New York. Epstein makes at least six attorneys who face professional consequence for representing this client since 2020.

Williams's order extends beyond Epstein and Brito. The court clerk sends the ruling to the New York State Bar, where Attorney General Todd Blanche holds his license, and to the District of Columbia Bar, where Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is a member. Both officials negotiated the settlement for the United States while previously representing Trump in other matters. The referral broadens a single sanctions order into scrutiny of two of the Justice Department's most senior lawyers.

@Santitos

@salinasmariasantos

Copyright © 2026 Maria Santos Salinas for FRONTeras.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Sharing the original posts or links from FRONTeras on social media is allowed and appreciated.

FRONTeras is an independent publication protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Our reporting and commentary draw from documented facts, public records, court filings, and reliable news sources. Opinions expressed in editorials are solely those of the author and do not constitute legal advice, divine truth, or the official position of FRONTeras. All articles, whether news, satirical or commentary, are produced according to journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and independence. While errors in reporting are possible, they will be corrected promptly once verified with credible sources. Critiques are grounded in evidence, not malice. Attempts to censor, intimidate, or punish the press will not alter the facts we publish. FRONTeras will continue to report without fear or favor.