Maine’s highest court has spoken out against a U.S. Department of Justice proposal that would suspend state investigations into federal attorneys.

In a letter to the DOJ on April 3, the justices — led by Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill — wrote that they are “gravely concerned” the proposed rule would interfere with the court’s obligations to regulate and discipline attorneys practicing in Maine.

Under the proposed rule, the DOJ would get first pass on investigating any state bar complaints against its lawyers. States would have to wait for the federal agency to do its review before pursuing their own investigations. The rule, if enacted, would also suspend any open state investigations into DOJ lawyers, according to a copy of the proposal that the agency filed with the Federal Register on March 4.

“(T)he Proposed Rule would interfere with our authority and responsibility to timely address ethical complaints against lawyers who are members of the Maine Bar,” the Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices wrote. “Prompt attention to complaints of attorney misconduct is critical to the protection of the public and to maintaining trust and confidence in the judicial system.”

A spokesperson for the DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

In Maine, the Board of Overseers of the Bar reviews and investigates all bar complaints regarding attorneys licensed to practice in the state. These reviews are confidential.

If the board reaches recommendations for disciplinary action, bar counsel and the accused attorney are allowed to argue their respective cases in front of either a grievance commission panel or the state supreme court.

The board’s director did not immediately respond to questions Wednesday about whether the state has any active investigations against DOJ attorneys.

The Maine State Bar Association also sent the DOJ a letter, stating the proposal “raises significant concerns regarding federal overreach into state authority, transparency, administrative efficiency and the timely exercise of disciplinary oversight.”

“The proposed rule does not fully account for the extent to which existing state disciplinary systems already incorporate safeguards addressing the concerns it identifies,” the bar association wrote.