In a latest update into the investigation of former Trump administration official Jeffrey Clark, officials from the DC Bar said in a filing that disbarment remains “the only possible sanction”. Clark, who served as the assistant US attorney general during his tenure, reportedly tried to engage Justice Department superiors in questioning the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election in Georgia, as detailed by lawyers for the bar.
The legal fraternity has been closely watching the case, where allegations of attempting to catalyze a national chaos on the verge of January 6 have been levied against Clark. Three lawyers led by DC Disciplinary Counsel Phil Fox have held that Clark’s actions violted ethical boundaries. The question of sanctions came up as the three-person panel tried to determine if Clark indeed broke at least one lawyer ethics rule. A ruling against him could have far-reaching consequences including jeopardizing his chances of securing a high position in a potential future Trump administration.
Clark, represented by lawyers Harry MacDougald and Charles Burnham, has counter-argued that the disciplinary proceedings are politically motivated and are being “weaponized” against allies of former President Donald Trump. As stated in court filings, he deems the case to be laden with political overtones.
The panel had asked Fox for alternative potential sanctions if Clark’s disbarment was not deemed appropriate. They however firmly reiterated their stance, elaborating that suggesting a sanction other than disbarment would be out of line with their duty to the disciplinary system and the profession at large. In violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers are seen as betraying their oaths, and consequently, their country. Their response concluded on a stern note, asserting, “lawyers who betray their country must be disbarred.”
The stage now shifts to May 23 when Clark’s lawyers are due to file their response. Following that, the case will move to the Board on Professional Responsibility and then to the DC Court of Appeals. It certainly stands as a vital verdict with far-reaching implications for legal ethics in the country.