76 legal ethics scholars and experts have filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, urging the court to reject the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to block disciplinary proceedings against former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. The filing is part of a broader coalition of more than 70 total signatories, and centers on Clark’s years-long battle to preserve his law license.

Clark, a former Trump administration DOJ official, faces disciplinary action over a draft letter he prepared in late 2020 at then-President Donald Trump’s direction, amid Trump’s efforts to challenge his 2020 election defeat. The unsent document claimed the DOJ had identified significant election irregularities in Georgia and suggested state lawmakers reconsider the state’s presidential electors. Senior DOJ officials rejected the proposal, stating there was no evidence to support the claims, and DC disciplinary authorities moved forward with a case alleging Clark pushed for the letter despite being warned its factual assertions were unsubstantiated. In 2024, a DC Bar hearing committee recommended a two-year suspension of Clark’s license; a year later, the DC Board on Professional Responsibility voted to recommend full disbarment, though two board members suggested a three-year suspension instead. The DC Court of Appeals has final authority over Clark’s license, which remains in good standing currently.

Earlier this year, the Trump DOJ filed a lawsuit against DC’s disciplinary counsel and the organizations overseeing attorney discipline in the city, asking a federal judge to declare the entire disciplinary case unconstitutional and void. The suit argues the proceedings violate the Supremacy Clause, interfere with the president’s authority to oversee the executive branch, and would chill government lawyers from offering candid, honest advice during internal deliberations. DC disciplinary authorities have asked the judge to dismiss the suit, stating the case against Clark is not tied to his legal opinions but to his decision to push forward with unsubstantiated election fraud claims after being warned no evidence backed them, and that federal lawyers are bound by standard ethical rules per a longstanding provision of law.

The friend-of-the-court brief was coordinated by University of Connecticut Law School Professor Leslie Levin and Georgetown Law Center Professor Mitt Regan, and prepared by Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) volunteer lawyers Stephen Marcus and Gerson Ratner, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Emeritus Professor Myles V. Lynk, and Democracy Defenders Fund attorneys Chris Swartz and David Ogden, with research assistance from Georgetown Law students Tayler Smith, Gladwin An, and Verdant Bhargava.

The brief outlines longstanding, well-established rules that lawyers licensed to practice in a jurisdiction must follow that jurisdiction’s ethical regulations, and references 1998 federal legislation that explicitly states DOJ lawyers should be regulated the same as all other attorneys. It also notes consistent Supreme Court rulings recognizing state and DC regulatory authority over lawyer conduct, arguing that state ethical regulation of DOJ lawyers does not raise concerns under the Supremacy Clause. LDAD board member Mitt Regan pointed out that the brief covers both Supreme Court precedent and congressional intent to affirm state regulatory authority over DOJ lawyers. LDAD volunteer legal ethics expert Stephen Marcus said the case could lead to DOJ lawyers being exempt from state ethical rules, creating a class of lawyers not accountable for ethical misconduct, and added the brief gives the court clear grounds to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit.

Amb. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, stated that DOJ lawyers wield significant power but their law licenses do not come from the Department, and states regulate attorney licenses and enforce the rules that come with them, with no exception for government attorneys. Chris Swartz, senior ethics counsel at Democracy Defenders Fund, added that the Justice Department is asking courts to treat its lawyers differently from every other licensed attorney, which is not how the legal system works: every attorney must answer to independent disciplinary authorities, and government lawyers should be no exception. The groups also warned the DOJ’s lawsuit is part of a broader effort to limit outside investigations of department lawyers, and a victory for the DOJ could make it harder for courts and disciplinary bodies to look into misconduct by government attorneys. The friend-of-the-court brief is publicly available online.

This case is part of a broader fight over what conservative allies describe as “barfare,” or using disciplinary actions to target political opponents. Similar cases have targeted other Trump administration officials, including former Trump legal adviser John Eastman, who was disbarred by the California Supreme Court earlier this year. Clark and the DOJ have pointed to a lighter punishment for former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who altered a surveillance email and received probation and a short suspension, as evidence of uneven enforcement of disciplinary rules. Federal District Judge Richard Leon will now decide whether the disciplinary case against Clark is a standard prosecution for alleged dishonesty, or an unconstitutional attempt to punish a federal lawyer for work performed within the executive branch. A ruling in the case could set a precedent for how disciplinary authorities oversee federal lawyers, and may ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the DOJ’s lawsuit is dismissed, Clark’s disciplinary appeal will move forward before the DC Court of Appeals.

### Additional Recent Legal Ethics Developments - A Toronto lawyer has received a six-month suspension from practicing law and was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs after citing fake AI-generated court cases, then attempting to lie about the error by blaming a law student. This appears to be the first publicized regulatory punishment for a lawyer misusing AI in court filings; a University of Ottawa law professor specializing in legal ethics noted the significant sanctions send an important message that using fake or misleading legal authorities from AI violates professional responsibilities. - A Democratic senator from California has reintroduced a trio of bills aimed at increasing transparency and cracking down on conflicts of interest in the federal judiciary. The measures would expand executive branch financial conflict rules to the judiciary, require justices and judges to place certain financial assets in blind trusts, and make the judiciary’s administrative office subject to the Freedom of Information Act. - The New York Times’ lead newsroom lawyer discussed the Justice Department’s withdrawal of subpoenas sent to the Times’ reporters. - A former prominent Supreme Court lawyer, Thomas Goldstein, was sentenced to six years in prison for tax evasion and mortgage fraud, in a case that detailed his high-stakes poker playing while working at the top of the legal profession. - The American Bar Association issued a new ethics advisory stating U.S. government lawyers have an ethical obligation to report fellow employees’ law violations that could cause substantial harm to government organizations. - The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted a new ethics rule banning lawyers from beginning sexual relationships with clients; New Jersey had been one of only ten states without an explicit rule prohibiting this conduct. - A Florida law professor wrote an op-ed examining the ethical considerations when a lawyer files a complaint against a judge, noting that client obligations may sometimes require raising concerns about judicial conduct rather than only avoiding crossing an ethical line. - A legal memo outlined a clear path to implementing Supreme Court term limits, described as the most thorough and evenhanded treatment of the subject to date. - Fallout from a congressional hearing on diversity, equity, and inclusion in legal education included the abrupt departure of a law school dean. - An AI-driven platform that allows users to file lawsuits for a $29 fee faces potential litigation for practicing law without a license, according to a legal expert. - The Alabama State Bar released updated guidance on the ethical use of artificial intelligence, explaining how existing professional responsibilities apply to AI tools in legal departments. - An ethics complaint was filed against Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, with the New York Supreme Court’s Attorney Grievance Committee. - Wayne County public defenders launched a strike over ongoing failed negotiations for healthcare and wage increases. - Kenyan lawyers shut down courts across the country in a nationwide protest, citing alleged judicial corruption, long case delays, and a growing culture of impunity within the judiciary.

Original Sources/Tags: ldad.org, democracydefendersfund.org, democracydefendersfund.org, newsnationnow.com, news.bloomberglaw.com, reviewjournal.com, abovethelaw.com, washingtonexaminer.com

### Evaluation of the Article #### Actionable Help This article offers no usable, actionable steps for a normal reader. It only recounts the details of a specific federal court case involving a former DOJ lawyer’s disciplinary appeal, with no clear instructions, tools, or resources a person can apply to their own life. There are no tips on reporting unethical lawyer behavior, engaging with legal ethics efforts, or accessing information about bar disciplinary processes. The only implied action is passive awareness of the case, which provides no tangible agency for readers.

#### Educational Depth The article shares surface-level facts about the friend-of-the-court brief, its signatories, and the core legal arguments at play, but it provides no meaningful educational context. It does not explain how state bar disciplinary boards regulate attorneys, what the Supremacy Clause means for cross-jurisdictional lawyer oversight, or how federal and state ethical rules interact for DOJ lawyers. The mention of 76 scholars and 1998 federal legislation is presented without clarifying their broader significance, leaving the information superficial and disconnected from broader legal systems. No statistics or claims are explained with reasoning about their origin or impact.

#### Personal Relevance This information is only relevant to a narrow niche group: current or former DOJ lawyers, DC bar members, legal ethics professionals, and followers of federal court cases. For the average reader, the story feels distant and abstract, with no clear link to their daily lives, decisions, or responsibilities. It does not connect the case to everyday concerns like hiring a lawyer, accessing legal services, or protecting their own rights, so its personal relevance is extremely limited.

#### Public Service Function The article serves only as a news report, not a public service resource. It raises awareness of a single legal dispute but offers no safety guidance, emergency information, or tools to help the public act responsibly. It does not explain how non-lawyers can recognize unethical lawyer behavior, how to report such conduct, or why consistent ethical regulation of all attorneys matters for the general public. It exists solely to recount the case rather than serve the community.

#### Practical Advice The article contains no practical advice whatsoever. There are no steps, tips, or guidance a regular reader can follow, even if they wanted to engage with the issue. All details are specific to this one case, with no generalizable takeaways.

#### Long-Term Impact The article focuses exclusively on the immediate details of the court filing and case, with no guidance to help readers plan ahead, learn about legal ethics, or engage with these issues over time. It offers no lasting, actionable knowledge beyond the specifics of this single dispute, so it provides no long-term benefit.

#### Emotional and Psychological Impact The article uses a neutral, straightforward tone that avoids overt sensationalism, but it leaves readers informed but unempowered. It does not offer any constructive way to engage with the issue, so readers may feel frustrated or disconnected after reading, with no clear way to act on the information. It does not cause harm, but it also does not provide any clarity or calm for readers interested in legal ethics or accountability.

#### Clickbait and Exaggerated Language The article uses plain, non-sensational language to recount the case, with no overt clickbait, exaggerated claims, or dramatic framing. It sticks to factual details without overpromising or sensationalizing the dispute.

#### Missed Opportunities The biggest missed chances are failing to connect this case to broader public concerns about legal ethics, offering basic guidance for non-lawyers on how to engage with bar disciplinary processes, or explaining why consistent ethical regulation of all attorneys matters for everyday people. The article could have included simple, universal steps for recognizing unethical lawyer behavior or reporting concerns to local bar associations, but it limits itself to the niche details of this specific case.

---

### Practical, Universal Guidance for Readers For anyone who wants to engage with legal ethics or hold legal professionals accountable, start by learning the basics of your local bar association’s disciplinary process. Most state or local bar associations maintain public resources explaining how to file a complaint against a lawyer who violates ethical rules, such as failing to communicate with clients, misusing funds, or acting outside their area of expertise. You do not need to be a lawyer or involved in a specific case to access these resources, and they can help you protect your rights if you ever work with an attorney.

Stay informed about general legal ethics trends by following nonpartisan bar association publications or independent legal ethics organizations, rather than focusing solely on high-profile court cases. These resources often explain how ethical rules affect access to justice, client protections, and the integrity of the legal system, which can help you make more informed choices when hiring legal help or engaging with the legal profession.

If you care about government accountability and consistent ethical standards for all lawyers, consider supporting local bar associations or ethics-focused nonprofits. Many of these groups offer public events, newsletters, or volunteer opportunities to help strengthen ethical regulation, even for non-lawyers. Small, consistent actions like signing up for their updates or attending a public forum can help you stay engaged and support efforts to ensure all attorneys are held to the same high standards.

Finally, if you encounter behavior from a lawyer or legal professional that feels unethical or unfair, do not hesitate to reach out to your local bar association’s ethics committee. They can guide you through the process of reporting concerns, which helps maintain the integrity of the legal system for everyone. Even if you do not take formal action, being aware of your rights and the ethical rules that govern lawyers can help you avoid potential issues and make more confident decisions when working with legal professionals.

The text uses the phrase "broader effort to override state court authority" to talk about the Department of Justice’s position. This word choice sounds negative, like the DOJ is trying to take away power instead of making a legal case. It says the DOJ’s stance is part of a suspicious big plan instead of a narrow legal argument. This makes the DOJ’s position seem unfair without sharing any details about their side.

The text uses the phrase "not accountable for ethical misconduct" when talking about a possible result of the DOJ’s stance. This wording sounds really bad, like DOJ lawyers would break rules without any consequences. It acts like this hypothetical problem is sure to happen instead of just a possible one. This makes the DOJ’s legal argument sound more dangerous than it is described in the text.

The text only shares a short version of Clark’s argument without adding any details about his legal thinking. It does not explain why Clark thinks the DC board has no right to regulate him. This one-sided look makes the DOJ and Clark’s position seem weaker than it might be. It only shares facts that back up the friend-of-the-court brief’s point.

The text calls Clark’s actions "efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election" when describing the ethics complaint. This wording makes his behavior seem clearly wrong without noting any possible reasons he might have had. It does not share Clark’s side of the story about his part in the election efforts. This one-sided label makes Clark sound like he did something unethical before any court decided the case.

The text says the brief "gives the court clear grounds to dismiss the Department of Justice’s lawsuit." This is presented as a sure fact without sharing any arguments from the DOJ or Clark. It acts like the brief’s legal points are definitely right instead of something people can argue about. This one-sided claim makes the DOJ’s position seem wrong without any fair context.

The text contains several meaningful, clear emotions that shape how readers understand the legal issue at hand. The first emotion is worry, which appears when discussing volunteer legal ethics expert Stephen Marcus’s warning that the Department of Justice’s stance could let DOJ lawyers skip state ethical rules, creating a group of lawyers not responsible for ethical mistakes. This emotion is moderately strong, not overly dramatic, but clear enough to highlight a serious potential risk to fair, consistent lawyer accountability. Its purpose is to make readers see the DOJ’s position as a threat to basic ethical standards for all legal professionals. Next, steady critical disapproval runs through the text when describing the DOJ’s legal argument, seen in phrases like framing the DOJ’s position as part of a "broader effort to override state court authority" and noting the court is urged to reject the DOJ’s lawsuit. This emotion is not extreme, but it consistently signals the writer views the DOJ’s stance as unfair or overstepping its power, with the purpose of making readers question whether the DOJ’s argument is about following rules or avoiding accountability. A milder, cautious concern appears in the text’s focus on the friend-of-the-court brief’s reliance on longstanding, well-established legal rules, including 1998 federal legislation and decades of Supreme Court rulings. This emotion builds trust in the brief’s position by showing it is based on trusted, established legal ideas rather than unproven claims. These emotions guide reader reaction by first making readers care about the issue through the worry about unaccountable lawyers, then leaning them toward rejecting the DOJ’s stance via the critical disapproval, and finally building trust in the friend-of-the-court brief through the cautious focus on established rules. The writer uses several tools to amplify these emotional effects, starting with selective word choice: replacing neutral legal talk about state power to regulate lawyers with emotional phrases like "broader effort to override state court authority" to make the DOJ’s position sound like a power grab rather than a fair legal debate. Next, the writer uses quotes from multiple respected experts, including Georgetown Law professor Mitt Regan and legal ethics expert Stephen Marcus, to back up the worried and critical tones, making the argument feel more trustworthy instead of just one person’s opinion. The writer also repeats the idea of consistent, longstanding legal rules to reinforce that the brief’s position is the correct one, making readers more likely to side with the brief. Finally, the writer contrasts the DOJ’s position with the goal of fair lawyer accountability, making the DOJ’s stance seem like it goes against what is right for the legal system, steering readers to view the issue as a battle between proper accountability and unfair avoidance of rules.