A panel in Washington has recommended that Jeffrey Clark, one of former President Donald Trump’s officials in the Justice Department, face a two-year suspension from practicing law because of his role in the administration’s response to the 2020 presidential election.
In an Aug. 1 report, a three-member panel of the District of Columbia Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility said that Mr. Clark “attempted dishonesty and did so with truly extraordinary recklessness.”
It pointed to his letter asking Georgia election officials to convene a special session to deal with alleged fraud and irregularities following the 2020 election.
“At the eleventh hour of the Trump administration, he sought to take over responsibility for investigations into election matters, and relying on what was, at best, a fraction of the information any reasonable attorney would expect to act on, to insist on sending a letter—with significant false and misleading statements—to officials in the State of Georgia, urging extraordinary action to intervene in the electoral process,” read the report, which came from the board’s hearing committee.
A panel letter notified Mr. Clark that it would hear oral arguments following objections from either he or the disciplinary counsel asking for punishment.
Without objections, the board is expected to affirm or modify the panel’s recommendation, which will then go before the D.C. Court of Appeals.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel had argued that Mr. Clark should face disbarment.
It is unclear how the board and appeals court will ultimately rule, but the Aug. 1 letter to Mr. Clark clarified that the board could recommend a heavier punishment.
“The board wishes to emphasize that it is not unusual for it to modify the recommendation of the hearing committee and to recommend to the court a more severe discipline than that which was recommended by the hearing committee or disciplinary counsel,” the panel’s letter to Mr. Clark read.
Mr. Clark’s attorney said he would appeal the panel’s decision.
In its 213-page report, the panel waded through witness testimony while comparing Mr. Clark’s case to that of other Trump attorneys, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman.
Mr. Giuliani was disbarred in New York this summer. At the same time, a judge in California has recommended the same for Mr. Eastman—both in relation to their work with Trump after the 2020 election.
Mr. Clark was charged by District of Columbia Bar authorities with violating two professional rules: attempting to engage in dishonest conduct and attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.
In Georgia, Mr. Clark is also defending against criminal racketeering charges in connection with the 2020 election brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
The panel’s report pushed back on some of the disciplinary counsel’s assertions and concluded that “Mr. Clark did not attempt to significantly interfere with the administration of justice.”
It accepted that “Mr. Clark was sincere in his belief that sending the letter was appropriate” and that he “believed he was in a unique position to act and believed it was his duty to do so.”
However, the panel said that “his personal beliefs blinded him from objectively assessing the facts and the reality of his proposed course of action, and caused him to rationalize a broader role for the Department of Justice, failing to distinguish President Trump from candidate Trump.”
Mr. Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, argued that the charges were unfounded as the letter was merely a drafted proposal.
“No one has ever been charged by the District of Columbia Bar with attempted dishonesty in a draft letter that recommended a change in policy or position where that document was not approved, and never even left the office,” he said in his opening statement before a three-judge panel of District of Columbia Bar attorneys in March.
