Former Attorneys General Rally Against Disbarment of Jeffrey Clark Amid Controversy
In a significant legal and political development, three former U.S. Attorneys General have publicly opposed the disbarment of Jeffrey Clark, a controversial figure linked to the Trump administration. This move comes in the wake of a disciplinary board’s recommendation for Clark to lose his law license due to his actions surrounding the 2020 presidential election.
Background on Jeffrey Clark
Jeffrey Clark served as the acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division during the Trump administration. His involvement in the aftermath of the 2020 election has drawn scrutiny, particularly for a letter he authored in December 2020. In this letter, Clark suggested that state legislatures investigate alleged voting irregularities, a stance that has been widely criticized as an attempt to undermine the electoral process.
The disciplinary board of the D.C. Bar has recommended that Clark be permanently disbarred, citing his actions as a violation of legal ethics. The board’s decision is rooted in the assertion that lawyers must not advocate for outcomes based on false statements, a principle that is foundational to the legal profession.
The Amicus Brief
In a surprising twist, former Attorneys General Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals in support of Clark. This brief, submitted by the law firm Boyden Gray PLLC, argues that punishing Clark for his recommendations would set a dangerous precedent. The former AGs expressed their concerns that such disciplinary actions could lead to a chilling effect on federal lawyers, discouraging them from providing candid legal advice for fear of political retribution.
The brief emphasizes that Clark’s recommendations were never intended for public release, suggesting that the disciplinary board’s actions could open the door to charging federal lawyers with “dishonesty” for internal discussions and legal strategies. This perspective highlights a broader concern about the politicization of legal ethics and the potential ramifications for government lawyers.
The Disciplinary Board’s Rationale
The D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility has been clear in its stance against Clark. In its preliminary ruling, the board stated that Clark “persistently and energetically sought” to promote false narratives regarding the election. The board’s recommendation for disbarment is intended to send a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated within the legal community.
Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, has vehemently defended his client, asserting that Clark “never lied about anything to anybody.” MacDougald has characterized the push for disbarment as a “pure thought crime,” arguing that it represents a troubling trend in which legal opinions and recommendations are subject to punitive measures.
Comparisons to Other Cases
The case against Clark has drawn comparisons to the treatment of other legal professionals, particularly former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith received a one-year suspension from the D.C. Bar after pleading guilty to falsifying court documents related to the surveillance of a Trump campaign aide. The former Attorneys General have pointed out the disparity in treatment between Clinesmith and Clark, noting that Clinesmith’s actions resulted in a relatively lenient punishment despite a criminal conviction.
This comparison raises questions about consistency and fairness in the application of legal ethics. The former AGs argue that the board’s decision to pursue disbarment for Clark, who has not faced any criminal charges, is indicative of a double standard within the legal system.
Implications for Legal Ethics
The ongoing debate surrounding Clark’s potential disbarment underscores a critical issue in the legal profession: the balance between ethical conduct and political considerations. As the legal landscape becomes increasingly polarized, the implications of this case extend beyond Clark himself. It raises fundamental questions about the role of lawyers in a democratic society and the extent to which political pressures can influence legal ethics.
The former Attorneys General’s intervention in this case reflects a broader concern about the potential for political retribution against legal professionals who offer controversial or unpopular opinions. If lawyers fear disciplinary action for their recommendations, it could stifle open discourse and hinder the ability of government lawyers to provide robust legal counsel.
Conclusion
The case of Jeffrey Clark serves as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over legal ethics and political accountability. As three former U.S. Attorneys General advocate for Clark’s right to practice law, they highlight the potential dangers of politicizing legal ethics. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the legal profession, shaping how lawyers navigate the complex intersection of law and politics in an increasingly divided nation. As the D.C. Court of Appeals prepares to make its decision, the legal community and the public alike will be watching closely, aware that the stakes extend far beyond one individual’s law license.
