Former AGs Blast DC Bar’s ‘Disciplinary Jihad’ Against Jeff Clark

A coalition of former attorneys general blasted the D.C. Bar’s “disciplinary jihad” against former Trump Justice Department official Jeff Clark in a new court filing on Monday.

Brought by former Attorneys General Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey, the amicus brief takes aim at the D.C. Bar’s ongoing “barfare” against Clark for legal advice he gave Trump following the contested 2020 presidential election. As The Federalist reported, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox III and related entities earlier this year for their alleged “unlawful prosecution” of Clark “based on internal deliberations relating to potential fraud” in the 2020 contest.

“D.C. disciplinary authorities may not punish a United States official for disagreeing with a superior or coworker or for sharing an opinion just because those disciplinary authorities disagree with it,” the DOJ complaint reads.

In their brief supporting the Justice Department, Barr and Co. argued that the D.C. Bar’s crusade against Clark imposes “a severe injury on the Department and its lawyers.” “Even if Mr. Clark is cleared of all allegations,” they wrote, “the Defendants’ ruination of his name, damage to his career, and — most important — interference with DOJ’s internal operations all cast a chilling pall over how Department lawyers do their jobs.”

“While amici may not have agreed with the legal strategy then-Assistant Attorney General Clark advanced, we believe that only DOJ and, if necessary, the President, may discipline or punish a senior DOJ lawyer for privileged and confidential internal deliberations, such as providing legal advice, weighing the credibility and importance of evidence, and recommending a course of action,” the filing reads. “That’s especially so here where the advice and deliberations concerned matters of the highest importance and sensitivity.”

As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd previously summarized, the D.C. Bar’s campaign against Clark reportedly originated from a report “alleging Clark played a key role in a plot to ‘wield [the] DOJ’s power to override the already-certified popular vote’ when he drafted a letter to Georgia officials noting the DOJ ‘identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States’ including the Peach State.” While Clark declined to send the letter following objections from his superiors and “a pivot from the president,” the D.C. Bar nonetheless launched a bid to strip his law license.

In opposing Fox and co-defendants’ motion to dismiss the DOJ’s suit, the former attorneys general warned that the D.C. Bar’s “jihad” against Clark will cause agency attorneys to “self-censor” if they believe that their internal legal advice and deliberations will be subject to potential disciplinary bar action. They further blasted defendants’ “naïve” arguments “that in a fast moving, high-pressure environment what is ‘fact’ and what is ‘true’ will be so obvious to all honest lawyers as to preclude discussion or intense debate.”

“Allowing a D.C. professional licensing body to investigate, prosecute, or discipline DOJ attorneys for such internal deliberative actions obviously injures the Department by subjecting it to oversight from local authorities not under Presidential control. This intrusion violates the Separation of Powers doctrine and is precluded by the McDade Amendment,” the brief reads.

D.C. District Senior Judge Richard Leon is the judge presiding over United States v. Fox, according to court records. The Bush 43 appointee has garnered headlines in recent months for blocking Trump’s White House ballroom construction. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts paused Leon’s injunction in an order issued last week.