Disciplinary Panel Suggests Suspending Trump Ally From Legal Practice

A panel based in Washington has put forth a recommendation to suspend Jeffrey Clark, a former official in the Justice Department under the administration of former President Donald Trump, from practicing law for a period of two years. This recommendation comes as a consequence of Mr. Clark’s involvement in the administration’s response to the 2020 presidential election.

In a report dated August 1, a three-member panel from the District of Columbia Bars Board on Professional Responsibility stated that Mr. Clark exhibited an attempt to deceive that was fueled by an unprecedented level of recklessness.

The panel cited Mr. Clark’s letter urging Georgia election officials to convene a special session to address alleged fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election. It characterized his actions as a last-minute attempt, during the Trump administration, to take over the responsibility for election-related investigations. The panel found that Mr. Clark relied on only a fraction of the information that any reasonable attorney would consider sufficient, and based on that limited information, he insisted on sending a letter that contained significant false and misleading statements to Georgia officials. The letter urged them to take extraordinary actions to intervene in the electoral process, according to the report provided by the panel’s hearing committee.

A letter from the panel was sent to Mr. Clark, notifying him that oral arguments would be held if any objections were raised by either himself or the disciplinary counsel seeking his punishment.

The board is expected to affirm or modify the panel’s recommendation, which will then be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the absence of any objections.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel contended that Mr. Clark should be disbarred, although the final decision is yet to be determined by the board and appeals court. The letter dated August 1 to Mr. Clark clarified that the board has the authority to recommend a more severe punishment if deemed necessary.

The letter from the panel addressed to Mr. Clark emphasized that it is common for the board to modify the recommendation made by the hearing committee and to recommend a stricter disciplinary action to the court than what was originally proposed by the committee or disciplinary counsel.

Mr. Clark’s attorney has announced plans to appeal the panel’s decision.

In its extensive 213-page report, the panel thoroughly analyzed witness testimonies while establishing a comparison between Mr. Clark’s case and those of other Trump attorneys, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman.

Earlier this summer, Mr. Giuliani was disbarred in New York, and a judge in California also recommended disbarment for Mr. Eastman, both due to their work with Trump following the 2020 election.

In the case of Mr. Clark, the District of Columbia Bar authorities have charged him with two counts of professional rule violations: attempting to engage in dishonest conduct and trying to interfere with the administration of justice.

Furthermore, Mr. Clark is currently facing criminal racketeering charges related to the 2020 election, brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia.

The panel’s report refuted several claims made by the disciplinary counsel and concluded that Mr. Clark did not strongly attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The panel acknowledged that Mr. Clark genuinely believed that sending the letter was the right action to take and that he felt he was uniquely positioned to act and obligated to do so.

Nevertheless, the panel asserted that Mr. Clark’s personal beliefs hindered him from objectively evaluating the facts and the feasibility of his proposed course of action. This caused him to rationalize a broader role for the Department of Justice and an incapacity to differentiate President Trump from candidate Trump.

During his opening statement in March before a three-judge panel of District of Columbia Bar attorneys, Mr. Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, argued that the charges against his client were baseless as the letter was merely a drafted proposal.

“No one has ever faced charges from the District of Columbia Bar for attempted dishonesty in a draft letter suggesting a change in policy or position, especially when that document was never approved or even released from the office,” he stated.