The D.C. Bar has recommended that Jeff Clark, a former senior Justice Department official aligned with President Donald Trump, be permanently stripped of his law license, igniting a fierce debate among conservatives who decry the move as politically motivated “lawfare” aimed at silencing administration loyalists. This significant development stems from Clark’s controversial actions following the 2020 election, where he was accused of pushing for official action based on what legal ethics officials deemed knowingly false claims about election fraud.
In a detailed Thursday decision, a majority of the nine-member D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that Clark “persistently and energetically sought” to pressure department leadership to propagate unsubstantiated allegations regarding election integrity. This finding, outlined in a comprehensive 104-page report, asserts that Clark’s conduct violated established legal ethics, setting a precedent for disciplinary actions against attorneys involved in post-election challenges.
Clark, who previously served as acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Division during Trump’s first term, now holds a pivotal position at the Office of Management and Budget, overseeing regulatory review efforts. Defending his actions, Clark branded the D.C. Bar proceedings “100% politicized,” maintaining that he “did the right thing in 2020 and 2021” by internally raising election questions, a stance that resonates deeply with his conservative supporters.
The D.C. Bar’s decision against Clark marks him as the latest addition to a growing roster of Trump-aligned attorneys who have faced professional disciplinary actions since the former president began publicly disputing the 2020 election results. This pattern has fueled accusations from conservative circles about a concerted effort to target and sideline lawyers associated with the Trump administration’s legal defense strategies, including figures like Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Jenna Ellis.
In response, Trump allies and conservative strategists are actively exploring various countermeasures to aid Clark in his fight against disbarment. Prominent voices, including Mike Davis and Steve Bannon, have proposed aggressive strategies ranging from challenging the bar’s authority and denying government contracts to law firms deemed hostile to conservative causes, to seeking legal reimbursements for Clark, emphasizing a united front against perceived political persecution.
The unfolding situation raises questions about the Department of Justice’s potential involvement in challenging the D.C. Bar’s recommendation. While the DOJ has yet to comment, allies like Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton are publicly urging the department to hold the D.C. Bar and other state bars accountable for what they label the “Left’s anti-Trump jihad,” advocating for a scrutiny of potential ideological bias in disciplinary proceedings.
Clark’s controversial ascent stemmed from his efforts after the 2020 election, where he reportedly urged DOJ leadership to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers expressing “significant concerns” about the state’s election results. Although the letter was never dispatched due to internal opposition and threats of mass resignations from top DOJ officials, this incident, culminating in a tense Oval Office meeting, forms a crucial part of the D.C. Bar’s case against him, highlighting the intense pressure and ethical dilemmas faced by officials at the time.
Notably, two members of the D.C. Bar’s board recommended only a three-year suspension for Clark, arguing that his actions, while abnormal, did not meet the threshold of “flagrant” dishonesty warranting permanent disbarment, indicating a division within the disciplinary body itself. The decision now proceeds to the D.C. Court of Appeals, where Clark has 30 days to petition for a stay of the automatic suspension, ensuring that the battle over his law license and the broader implications for politically active lawyers will continue to unfold.
