Legal Ethics Shattered: The Andrew Babcock Disbarment
The legal profession demands more than just mastery of statutes and case law it requires an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. The case of Andrew Dag Babcock serves as a stark reminder that serious criminal conduct leaves no room for a continued career in law. What began as a criminal prosecution in Michigan quickly escalated into multi-jurisdictional disbarments, stripping Babcock of his ability to practice law in two states and before the public he once served.
In re Babcock, Andrew Dag, Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, (Order of Disbarment, Sept. 16, 2021).
In re Babcock, Andrew Dag, M.R. 031243 (Ill. Sept. 21, 2022) (Disbarment on Consent).
On September 16, 2021, a Michigan jury found attorney Andrew Dag Babcock guilty of:
•Two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13 years old and
•One count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct relationship to victim
These are among the most serious felony charges in Michigan’s penal code, carrying potential life sentences.
Immediately upon conviction, Michigan Court Rule required that his law license be automatically suspended. Following the automatic suspension, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board issued an order of disbarment effective the same day September 16, 2021 removing Babcock’s authority to practice law in the state.
One year later, on September 21, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline. Babcock was disbarred on consent, meaning he agreed to be removed from the roll of Illinois attorneys without contest. This action was directly tied to his Michigan criminal convictions and disbarment.
The Illinois Supreme Court’s announcement noted:
Mr. Babcock was disbarred on consent. In September 2021, a Michigan jury found him guilty of three counts of criminal sexual conduct.
The nature of Babcock’s crimes sexual offenses against minors left no space for rehabilitation within the profession. Such conduct irreparably breaches the trust essential to the attorney client relationship.
Lawyers are held to higher ethical standards not only because of their position but also because their credibility is integral to the justice system’s legitimacy.
Lawyers are held to higher ethical standards not only because of their position but also because their credibility is integral to the justice system’s legitimacy.
Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?
Subscribe to our blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rule analyses and disciplinary updates.
Independent Journalism Needs You
You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.
We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.
If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.
Reader Supported
This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.
We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.
Join 47 readers who donated this month
47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters
Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.
The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.
