In a recent legal development, a federal court in Washington DC has refused to intervene in a disciplinary hearing involving Jeffrey Clark, a former Department of Justice (DOJ) official with ties to the Trump administration. The hearing pertains to Clark’s alleged participation in an effort to overturn the 2020 US presidential election results. The US District Court for the District of Columbia stated that it lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings conducted by the DC Board on Professional Responsibility Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
The ODC initiated its investigation into Clark after it was revealed that he had actively participated in and furthered former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results. In July 2022, the board found Clark to be dishonest and guilty of attempting to interfere with justice, violating his professional responsibilities as a licensed lawyer in Washington DC. Consequently, the board recommended disciplinary action against him.
Following the ODC’s proceedings, Clark filed a request with the District Court of DC, seeking federal oversight of the case instead of ODC officials. However, the court rejected his request, citing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over the disciplinary proceedings. Clark argued that the court could oversee the case due to the “hybrid nature of Bar disciplinary proceedings,” claiming similarities to both civil and criminal proceedings. The court disagreed, clarifying that since the proceedings did not fall under either category, Clark could not transfer them to federal court.
Additionally, Clark asserted that the court should have jurisdiction over the proceedings based on the presence of a federal question. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that it lacked merit. The court deemed Clark’s use of outdated precedent irrelevant, emphasizing that because the proceedings did not arise under federal law, there was no federal question jurisdiction.
As a result of the court’s decision, Clark will now face ODC proceedings before a quasi-judicial body known as a hearing committee. The ODC alleges that Clark violated Rules 8.4(a), (c), and (d) of the DC Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit lawyers barred from practicing in DC from engaging in dishonest conduct or interfering in the administration of justice.
The allegations against Clark initially came to light when a group of 34 attorneys filed a 15-page complaint with the board in October 2021. They accused Clark of violating the DC Rules of Professional Conduct by attempting to persuade the DOJ to invalidate the 2020 presidential election results in multiple states.
The public became aware of these allegations during proceedings before the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. In a June 2022 hearing, former DOJ officials who served during the Trump administration testified about Clark’s involvement. They disclosed that Clark had written a letter on behalf of Trump, falsely claiming that Georgia’s election integrity was compromised. Trump had made these baseless claims in an effort to overturn the election results in Georgia, where President Joe Biden had garnered a majority of the votes. Furthermore, Trump had attempted to install Clark as acting Attorney General of the United States, but this endeavor, like the letter, ultimately failed.
With the federal court’s decision, the disciplinary proceedings against Clark will proceed within the ODC system, specifically before a hearing committee. The outcome of these proceedings will shed light on the potential consequences Clark may face for his alleged professional misconduct, as outlined by the DC Rules of Professional Conduct.