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.

Background and Context

The disciplinary proceedings against Jeffrey Clark, a former Assistant Attorney General in the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), represent a critical intersection of legal ethics, executive privilege, and post-2020 election political warfare. The current high-stakes battle unfolding in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is not merely a technical review of professional conduct; it is viewed by conservative advocates as a fundamental test of whether an attorney can be persecuted for offering controversial legal advice to a sitting President.

The Crucible of Conflict: Late 2020

The origins of the legal conflict date back to the immediate aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Jeffrey Clark, who served as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, and briefly headed the Environment and Natural Resources Division, became central to President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the election results. Unlike senior DOJ officials, including then-Attorney General William Barr and Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who concluded there was no widespread fraud sufficient to overturn the results, Clark reportedly aligned himself with the White House’s legal theories regarding potential irregularities.

The core of the alleged professional misconduct stems from an internal DOJ conflict in late December 2020 and early January 2021. Clark is accused of drafting and circulating a highly controversial letter intended for high-ranking officials in Georgia. This draft letter proposed that the DOJ notify state officials that the Department had identified concerns regarding election outcomes and suggest that the Georgia legislature should convene to consider appointing a new slate of electors, thereby potentially throwing the state’s results into doubt. Crucially, the letter was drafted despite senior DOJ officials explicitly informing Clark and the White House that the Department had found no credible evidence to support such claims.

The gravity of Clark’s actions escalated dramatically on January 3, 2021, when President Trump contemplated replacing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Clark, a move that the President hoped would allow the DOJ to aggressively pursue election claims. This attempted maneuver triggered a near-mutiny among senior DOJ leadership. Testimony before the House January 6th Committee later revealed that if Clark had been appointed, dozens of high-ranking DOJ officials, including every Assistant Attorney General, threatened to resign en masse. This internal crisis ultimately led to Trump stepping back from the plan, preserving the Department’s official non-interventionist stance, but placing Clark squarely in the national spotlight.

The Initiation of Disciplinary Action

Following these events, Clark became a primary target of investigation. He was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Georgia RICO case targeting election interference, and he was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee on January 6th. More directly related to his professional life, the D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) initiated formal disciplinary proceedings. The ODC’s charges allege violations of several key Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly focusing on Rule 8.4 (Misconduct, often covering conduct involving dishonesty or serious interference with the administration of justice) and Rule 3.3 (Candor toward the tribunal). The central accusation is that Clark, through the draft Georgia letter and his internal advocacy, engaged in dishonesty and actions prejudicial to the administration of justice by attempting to leverage the authority of the DOJ based on unproven claims.

The disciplinary process is exhaustive, requiring formal hearings before a hearing committee, with the ultimate authority for license suspension or disbarment resting with the D.C. Court of Appeals. Clark’s legal team has consistently maintained that the proceedings are deeply flawed, arguing that his actions were taken within his official capacity as a high-ranking government lawyer advising the President—a duty protected by executive immunity and the First Amendment r

ight to petition the government.

The AFL Intervention and Claims of Persecution

The current legal flashpoint arises from Clark’s appeal of an evidentiary ruling. However, the significance of the case was drastically amplified by the intervention of America First Legal (AFL), a conservative organization founded by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller. AFL’s amicus brief seeks to halt the entire disciplinary proceeding, not just challenge an evidentiary point.

AFL asserts that the D.C. Bar, under the guise of ethical review, is engaged in an unprecedented and politically motivated persecution designed to punish Clark for his political views and his official legal advice. They argue that the D.C. Bar’s ODC has exceeded its jurisdictional authority by attempting to regulate the policy-making and internal advice functions of a senior DOJ official. By framing the charges against Clark, who was executing the duties of the Executive Branch, as an ethical violation, AFL contends that the Bar is creating a chilling effect, intimidating future government lawyers from offering candid, albeit controversial, advice to the President. AFL’s description of the proceedings as “un-American” centers on the claim that using a professional licensing body to adjudicate high-level governmental policy disputes constitutes a gross abuse of power and sets a dangerous precedent for the politically driven weaponization of professional conduct rules.

Key Developments

Key Developments

The disciplinary action against Jeffrey Clark has metastasized from a routine ethics hearing into a high-stakes constitutional confrontation, currently sitting before the D.C. Court of Appeals. The most significant development is the introduction of the explosive amicus brief filed by America First Legal (AFL), which reframes the entire proceeding not as an ethical inquiry, but as a direct act of political warfare intended to punish a government official for rendering controversial legal advice to the President.

The Procedural Crucible

The current phase of the legal battle follows a protracted period of hearings before the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR). The central allegation driving the BPR’s action is that Clark, while serving as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, attempted to subvert the 2020 election certification. Specifically, the case hinges on a draft letter Clark intended to send to Georgia state officials, urging them to delay certification due to alleged irregularities. The BPR concluded that this act violated several rules of professional conduct, constituting dishonesty and interfering with the administration of justice. The resulting recommendation from the BPR, which is typically highly punitive—likely recommending suspension or disbarment—is what is now under review by the appellate court.

The AFL Intervention and the “Chilling Effect” Argument

America First Legal dramatically escalated the rhetorical and legal stakes by submitting its amicus brief, positioning itself as a defender of the separation of powers and the integrity of executive branch legal counsel. AFL’s core argument is procedural and constitutional: the D.C. Bar lacks the authority to adjudicate policy disagreements between a high-ranking Department of Justice official and his colleagues, let alone the advice he provided to the President.

The brief unequivocally labels the persecution of Clark as “un-American,” arguing that the disciplinary process has been weaponized by political adversaries seeking to criminalize legal theories they disagree with. AFL warns the D.C. Court of Appeals that upholding the BPR’s recommendation would establish a devastating precedent, creating a profound “chilling effect” on all future government attorneys. If lawyers risk losing their livelihoods simply for offering counsel that challenges the prevailing political narrative, the essential ability of the Executive Branch to receive candid and robust legal advice will be fundamentally compromised. This, AFL contends, undermines the very foundations of good governance and the ability of an administration to challenge perceived constitutional or electoral failures.

The Stakes for Executive Privilege

Beyond the direct threat to Clark’s license, the case has become a critical test of the boundaries of executive branch legal privilege. Clark’s defense has consistently maintained that his actions fell within the scope of his duties and were shielded by attorney-client privilege within the executive branch, and the First Amendment protections afforded to political speech and advice. AFL amplifies this point, arguing that subjecting high-level policy advice—especially concerning constitutional duties and electoral integrity—to retroactive scrutiny by a local bar association turns the justice system into a political tool for suppressing dissent.

This particular development sets the stage for a landmark ruling. Should the D.C. Court of Appeals sustain the findings against Clark, it would effectively give professional ethics boards unprecedented authority to scrutinize the internal legal decision-making processes of presidential administrations. Conversely, a victory for Clark would affirm the principle that government lawyers must be free to offer challenging advice without fear of losing their professional credentials, thereby constraining the perceived political overreach of bar associations nationwide. The filings have made clear that this is not merely an ethics case, but a constitutional legal war over the limits of political accountability and professional freedom.

Stakeholders and Impact

This high-stakes legal confrontation involves a complex matrix of individuals and institutions, each bearing significant consequences depending on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against Jeffrey Clark. The filing of America First Legal’s amicus brief has strategically elevated the contest from a routine ethical hearing into a defining political and constitutional battleground, exponentially increasing the potential impact on the rule of law and the standards of government service.

Stakeholders and Immediate Impacts

1. Jeffrey Clark: The Central Figure and His Career

For Jeffrey Clark, the immediate stakes are existential. His livelihood, reputation, and identity as a lawyer are on the line.

• Impact of Guilt: If the D.C. Bar successfully proves ethical misconduct, Clark faces potential disbarment or suspension. This would effectively end his legal career and cement a negative public narrative that he abused the powers of the Justice Department for political gain. Furthermore, a finding of professional misconduct could be leveraged by federal prosecutors in any ongoing criminal inquiries related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, bolstering arguments about intent and action.

• Impact of Vindication: Should the D.C. Court of Appeals dismiss the charges, Clark would be legally vindicated. He would immediately become a martyr figure within conservative political circles, validating the claim that the proceedings were purely a “political witch hunt.” This would likely amplify his role in future government or legal positions aligned with the America First movement.

2. The D.C. Bar Disciplinary System: Institutional Credibility

The D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility and its Disciplinary Counsel are on trial as much as Clark himself. Their institutional integrity hinges on proving that their actions are ethical, non-political, and necessary to uphold the profession’s standards.

• Impact of Loss: If the disciplinary action is halted or overturned based on AFL’s argument that the proceedings are politically motivated, it severely weakens the D.C. Bar’s ability to police the conduct of high-ranking government officials. It would lend credence to the “un-American” persecution narrative, suggesting that powerful political figures are effectively immune from ethical scrutiny for actions taken during policy disputes, regardless of the severity of those actions.

• Impact of Success: A finding of guilt and subsequent sanction affirms the Bar’s independence and demonstrates that even internal disputes involving the highest levels of the Executive Branch are subject to ethical regulation. This outcome would provide a strong deterrent against future attempts by government lawyers to use official processes to advance partisan objectives outside the bounds of professional conduct.

3. America First Legal (AFL): Strategy and Movement Building

AFL is using Clark’s defense as a strategic vehicle for its broader mission: challenging what it perceives as the weaponization of the legal system against conservatives.

• Impact of the Brief: Regardless of the final outcome, the filing itself is a success for AFL. It dramatically reframes the technical disciplinary hearing as a constitutional defense of free speech and political advocacy. By branding the prosecution “un-American,” AFL mobilizes grassroots support, attracts media attention, and secures its place as a leading legal defense organization for the Trump ecosystem.

• Impact on Future Litigations: A favorable ruling would create powerful legal scaffolding for defending other Trump administration officials facing scrutiny (e.g., in similar proceedings against John Eastman or former Attorney General Bill Barr), legitimizing the argument that disciplinary actions following political service are inherently retaliatory.

Broader Systemic Impacts

4. The American Legal Profession and the Rule of Law

The Clark case is a seismic test case defining the boundaries of ethical behavior for attorneys advising a sitting President, particularly during constitutional crises or policy disagreements.

• The Chilling Effect vs. The Ethical Guardrail: If Clark is disciplined, it will establish a clear, though controversial, ethical guardrail, affirming that a government lawyer’s duty to the law supersedes fidelity to the President’s political goals. However, a major concern is the “chilling effect”: government attorneys might become unduly hesitant to offer candid, novel, or aggressive advice for fear of facing disbarment years later, potentially leading to overly cautious legal counsel in critical moments.

• Defining Political Advocacy: The court’s decision will delineate the precise point at which internal policy disagreement or legal advice crosses the line into actionable ethical misconduct. This definition will heavily influence how internal deliberations within the White House Counsel’s Office or the Justice Department are conducted and recorded, knowing that those internal records could later be scrutinized by state bar associations.

5. Former DOJ and White House Officials

Every attorney who served in a politically appointed position during the Trump administration—or any future administration—is a critical stakeholder.

• The outcome directly determines their post-government liability. If the D.C. Bar prevails, it validates a pathway for state bar associations to sanction federal officials for advice and actions taken while in office, dramatically expanding the scope of professional accountability for political appointees across the country. Conversely, if AFL succeeds, it erects significant procedural and political barriers to such post-service oversight.