Legal War: Jeff Clark Persecution Called 'Un-American'

America First Legal has filed an explosive amicus brief asking a D. C.

A high-stakes legal battle is unfolding in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where the future of former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark’s law license hangs in the balance. The conservative legal advocacy group America First Legal (AFL) has dramatically escalated the fight, filing an amicus brief that calls for an immediate end to the disciplinary proceedings, branding them as “unethical, un-American” political persecution. This case has become a flashpoint in the national debate over the weaponization of professional ethics complaints against political opponents, setting a dangerous precedent for government lawyers across the country.

The D.C. Bar’s Disbarment Recommendation

The disciplinary action against Jeffrey Clark stems from his conduct following the 2020 presidential election. Specifically at issue is a draft letter Clark prepared, which he sought to have the Justice Department send to officials in Georgia, suggesting the state legislature convene to review election results. Justice Department superiors refused to send the letter, asserting it contained false statements about the integrity of the election. The D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel subsequently filed charges, alleging Clark engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and attempted to seriously interfere with the administration of justice. The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility has since recommended that Clark be disbarred, a severe professional sanction that would strip him of his ability to practice law in the nation’s capital. The final decision rests with the D.C. Court of Appeals.

America First Legal Decries Partisan Persecution

America First Legal’s 29-page amicus brief forcefully argues that the ethics complaints against Clark are fundamentally motivated by “partisan animosity.” AFL contends that the proceedings are an unprecedented effort to punish purely internal and deliberative discussions that took place at the highest levels of the Executive Branch. The brief warns that such actions are “detrimental to the profession of law and the pursuit of justice,” transforming the D.C. Bar into a political weapon. This argument centers on the principle that executive branch lawyers must be able to provide candid, even controversial, legal advice without fear that their internal drafts and discussions—especially those that were never acted upon—will be illegally leaked and used as grounds for professional ruin. AFL President Gene Hamilton stated there is “no place in a free society for thought police” to regulate legal advice provided to the President.

Constitutional Crisis and the Separation of Powers

Beyond the issue of “political retribution,” the case raises profound constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers. Clark’s defense and the supporting amicus briefs, including one from former U.S. Attorneys General, argue that allowing a local bar association to “police the internal discussions of Executive Branch lawyers” effectively violates the separation of powers. Disciplining a federal lawyer for advice given to the President, they contend, would set a “dangerous precedent” that discourages federal attorneys from offering candid counsel on crucial matters. This chilling effect could severely impair the ability of the Executive Branch to function, forcing lawyers to self-censor their views for fear of professional retaliation by a politically opposed bar. The outcome of this case will not only determine Jeffrey Clark’s professional fate but also define the boundaries of ethical and political accountability for all federal lawyers.

The Stakes for Legal Integrity

The ongoing legal action against Jeffrey Clark highlights a broader trend critics call “lawfare”—the use of legal processes to achieve political ends. The D.C. Court of Appeals must now weigh the Bar’s mandate to uphold professional ethics against the constitutional necessity of protecting the confidentiality and independence of executive branch legal counsel. This decision will serve as a landmark ruling, either validating the use of bar complaints to ensure lawyer accountability in high-profile political matters or establishing a firm line against what many perceive as a politically motivated attack on a former administration official.

The battle over Jeffrey Clark’s law license is more than a legal technicality; it is a critical test of whether professional disciplinary bodies can remain impartial amidst intense political polarization. We urge you to follow the D.C. Court of Appeals’ final ruling closely, as its impact will shape the future of legal practice for government attorneys and the political landscape for years to come.

---

Original Source: The Federalist

• Tags:
• Election