A watchdog group wants bar authorities in Florida and Virginia to investigate Lindsey Halligan, the Florida lawyer installed by the Trump administration to pursue criminal cases against the president’s political opponents in Virginia.....

The group cites rules requiring candor to the court and competence, as well as ones prohibiting extrajudicial statements, knowingly bringing a charge unsupported by probable cause and being dishonest and deceptive.

“Failing to discipline Ms. Halligan under these egregious circumstances will embolden others who would use our system of justice for their own political ends,” the complaint argues.......

But even at this early stage, there are challenges to keep in mind when it comes to proving at least some of these violations.

For example, I previously analyzed the Florida rule that says prosecutors must “refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” Even though Halligan brought the cases over the objection of career prosecutors, I noted that to prove Halligan “knew the cases weren’t supported by probable cause appears to be an almost impossible standard to meet, barring some sort of yet-uncovered confession on her part. As opposed to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that applies at trial, the probable cause standard in the grand jury is famously low.”

There’s also the practical question of the political will of any agency to even consider holding the president’s avatar to account, with the Florida bar already resisting looking into Attorney General Pam Bondi (at least while she’s in office).

To be sure, the watchdog group doesn’t claim to have fully proved a case against Halligan already, but rather is asking the authorities to investigate the matter. Given how these cases came about and have proceeded thus far, it’s reasonable for the appropriate agencies to inquire, and this will be an important subject to follow no matter how the underlying cases conclude.