DOJ lawsuit escalates fight over discipline for Trump administration attorneys

The Trump administration is suing D.C.’s attorney discipline authorities over a recommendation to disbar Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who was found to have violated legal ethics in his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Wednesday evening, accuses those officials of unlawfully punishing federal government attorneys, impinging on the powers of the executive branch.

The lawsuit is the latest example of the Trump administration asserting its authority to try to redeem Trump allies and supporters who were charged or accused of wrongdoing for their actions around attempts to thwart the 2020 election results.

It also marks an escalation in the administration’s battle with state bar associations and attorney disciplinary boards, which are regulatory groups for the legal profession that ensure practicing attorneys meet educational requirements and ethical standards.

Trump and his allies have denounced state and local bar associations as politically motivated, pushing back on scrutiny the bodies have directed at Trump administration attorneys as they pursue unusual cases and investigatory paths to carry out the president’s political goals.

During Trump’s second term, the Justice Department has blocked its attorneys from participating in some high-profile events put on by local bar associations — a sharp departure from long-standing department norms. And in March, the Justice Department proposed new regulations that would allow the attorney general to suspend state and local bar investigations into the department’s attorneys.

“As our complaint and history make clear, the DC Bar has long acted as a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes. No more,” acting attorney general Todd Blanche said in a statement on Wednesday’s lawsuit.

The Bar does not directly handle investigations into potential ethics violations by its members. That process is handled by offices overseen by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Hamilton P. Fox, the chief disciplinary counsel handling D.C. Bar matters, who is named as a defendant in the suit, declined to comment on the lawsuit, as did the D.C. Court of Appeals. Others listed as defendants, including the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Clark was a former senior Justice Department appointee during the first Trump administration. Fox’s office found that Clark violated ethics rules when he drafted a letter for the Justice Department to send to Georgia officials, demanding that the state legislature call a special session to examine votes in the presidential election. Trump has long promoted baseless claims that his loss to Joe Biden was due to election fraud.

Multiple former Justice Department officials testified at Clark’s disciplinary hearing that he went against department findings that there was no significant fraud in the election when he drafted the letter.

Clark’s attorneys argued that he should not be punished because he never sent the letter — and that he should be protected from discipline because of attorney-client privilege.

But the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility recommended that Clark be disbarred for his actions.

That recommendation then goes to the D.C. Court of Appeals to make a final determination. The appeals court has not yet ruled on the matter.

“The D.C. Court of Appeals’ disciplinary authorities are punishing a former Department of Justice official for preparing a deliberative and pre-decisional draft letter that was never issued,” the lawsuit states. “Weaponizing state bar discipline against Executive Branch attorneys in this way chills them from giving candid legal advice to others in the Executive Branch, including the President and Attorney General. To permit these proceedings is to allow state bar authorities to control the Executive Branch. That is not the law.”

The lawsuit was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the third most powerful person in the department who oversees the civil division.

It asks for a judge to order the findings against Clark void and to prevent any future investigations into Clark around his work as a government attorney. In a post on social media, Clark thanked the Justice Department and called the lawsuit “an important step to vindicate the separation of powers.”

Several other attorneys in Trump’s orbit have faced disciplinary proceedings from state and local boards in recent years.

Actions by attorney disciplinary panels in D.C. and New York led to the permanent disbarment of Rudy Giuliani, who represented the president during in his legal fight to overturn the results of the 2020 election, in those jurisdictions after they found he had pressed baseless legal claims unsupported by the facts.

The California Supreme Court stripped John Eastman, another attorney involved in those efforts, of his law license earlier this year after a lengthy battle initiated by that state’s bar.

Earlier this year, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel also opened proceedings against Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s’ current pardon attorney. Martin has petitioned to remove the disciplinary proceedings to federal court, raising arguments about political bias similar to those made in Wednesday’s suit.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday devoted a section to Martin’s case, arguing that it provides further evidence that D.C. attorney ethics investigators are targeting conservative prosecutors.

The proceedings against Martin center on his unusual communications with then-Georgetown law school dean William M. Treanor. In a letter to Treanor, Martin questioned whether Georgetown was using Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) practices and, if so, demanded the school change its curriculum. The complaint alleges that Martin was vague over what DEI practices he was referring to and told Treanor that he would punish the school by not hiring its students and graduates — even before the dean had an opportunity to respond.

“Defendants are unlawfully attempting to regulate the Federal Government by leveraging the disciplinary process against Federal Government attorneys vis-à-vis other Federal Government attorneys differentially based on factors other than the disinterested administration of justice, like viewpoint and political affiliation,” the lawsuit states.