The three-member board of responsibility panel at the D.C. Bar has concluded that former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark probably violated at least one ethics rule while attempting to assist former President Trump in his bid to remain in office following the 2020 presidential election.
The disciplinary hearing committee emphasized that the ruling is preliminary and subject to change. However, after thoroughly examining the evidence presented during the testimony over the course of several days, the panel concluded that the disciplinary counsel has successfully demonstrated at least one violation of the charged disciplinary rules.
According to disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox III, the initial charge filing in July 2022 accuses Clark of attempting to engage in conduct that involves dishonesty and conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.
The initial decision, which is not final or enforceable, will now initiate additional proceedings to determine the appropriate sanctions for Clark. Fox has stated that he will be pursuing disbarment for Clark.
Clark faced primarily charges related to a draft letter titled “Proof of Concept.” He had composed this letter following the 2020 election and directed it towards Georgia public officials.
The letter contained false claims, including the assertion that the Department of Justice had identified significant concerns that may have affected the outcome of the election in the United States, specifically in the State of Georgia. It also called for the state Legislature to reconvene a special session.
Clark sent the letter to top-ranking Justice Department officials Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue for their signatures. However, Rosen and Donoghue declined to authorize the letter, citing falsehoods within its contents. Instead, they granted Clark permission to receive briefings from key officials regarding the findings of the election fraud investigations.
During the initial hearing last week, Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, expressed his concern over the unprecedented nature of the proceedings against Clark. He emphasized that the letter in question was not intended for public consumption and should have been protected by various privilege safeguards. MacDougald further argued that the letter was simply a part of the normal back-and-forth between lawyers and that penalizing Clark for it would have a detrimental impact on future debates.
