Sounds great. But it's a bit different than your Dr. example. I'll cite you to the law -- the law of unintended consequences.
"Make it easier to get rid of bad lawyers." And "We define 'bad lawyers' as lawyers who act to undermine the rule of law."
Sounds good.
Until the Bar, which absolutely can (and in numerous instances and locations, has been) trumped, usurped, and/or made subject to state law. As in....Dan Patrick and crew are now going to define what "undermining the rule of law" is. And that definition will pretty much be "taking any position that opposed Trump/MAGA."
Don't create a nuke that is just going to end up in the hands of the other side. And it WILL end up in their hands (FFS, they're using the weapons they have -- and even weapons they don't actually legally have -- to go directly after lawyers who have dared piss off the regime).
There are very, very, very good reasons to make it very, very, very hard to disbar an attorney for taking a politically unpopular position (and one would hope "trying to destroy the Republic and the rule of law" is such a position). That's because opposing politicians can and absolutely will, with 100% certainty, use such a tool to disbar attorneys for taking the unpopular position of "making America more dangerous by representing dirty illegals who are all rapists and criminals," and "undermining the will of the people by opposing the edicts of our King and Savior, His Majesty Donald Trump."
There is no good or easy answer here. I agree that lawyers who support the admin in undermining the rule of law are betraying at least the spirit, if not the letter of their oath. But understand that right now, no question about it, the regime and its allies think the opposite: lawyers who have opposed the regime are acting in an "un-American" manner and should be punished and taken out of action. It is ALREADY weaponized. My suggestion is....we shouldn't hand them upgraded weaponry so they can finish the job.