The Justice Department opened a new legal war on the D.C. bar, suing to stop it from punishing Jeffrey Clark, who, while part of the department in 2020, helped craft President Trump’s strategy for challenging the election results.
Department lawyers said Mr. Clark was acting in an official capacity in making the best arguments he could when he suggested ways to challenge the results, and punishing him would cross the line.
Mr. Clark was acting as an assistant attorney general in charge of the civil division at the time, and is accused of drafting a letter questioning the results in Georgia, which swung from Mr. Trump to President Biden in 2020.
The D.C. bar said Mr. Clark knowingly made false statements about the election as part of his push, and said that should cost him his law license.
The D.C. Court of Appeals board on professional responsibility concluded he showed “flagrant dishonesty” and should be disbarred — though a minority thought he should only be suspended.
The Justice Department, however, said that amounted to “weaponization” of the bar process to punish political enemies who make arguments with which the bar disagrees.
“As our complaint and history make clear, the D.C. Bar has long acted as a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes. No more,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
The Justice Department said it is seeking to “nullify” the discipline.
Last week it also moved to support Ed Martin, a former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who is seeking to have the D.C. bar’s case against him removed to another venue.
The D.C. Bar accused him of malfeasance in sending a letter to Georgetown University Law School challenging its diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
Justice said it could add Mr. Martin’s case into its complaint but is waiting to see the outcome of his venue challenge.
Wednesday’s lawsuit was filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia.
It names as defendants the District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals, its chief judge, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, its chair, and the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel and two of its top officials.
The Washington Times has sought comment from the Board of Professional Responsibility for this story.
Justice says Mr. Clark’s letter was part of the deliberative process at the department and was never even sent.
The department said if Mr. Clark can be punished for drafting something that reflected his “sincere view of the law and facts” it would chill the ability of future administrations to get candid legal advice.
The department said that to allow the D.C. bar to gain a veto over internal legal advice would violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
The Justice Department also said the D.C. bar itself is tainted.
It pointed to social media posts by Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler that complained about GOP-appointed justices on the Supreme Court and their rulings and said it was “unethical to engage with anti-vaxxers and people who claim there is a debate about birthright citizenship.”
