Justice official Clark violated ethics in aiding Trump, D.C. Bar panel finds

The committee did not specify which rule Clark violated, either attempted dishonesty or interference with the administration of justice.

The bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel has alleged that Clark, an assistant attorney general appointed by Trump, engaged in dishonest conduct when he drafted a letter that he wanted the Justice Department to send to Georgia officials, demanding that the state legislature call a special session to examine votes in the presidential election.

In the draft letter, Clark said the department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” That assertion was false, according to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which noted that Justice officials were unaware of any allegations of election fraud in Georgia that would have affected the results of the presidential race.

Clark’s attorney at Tuesday’s hearing repeatedly pointed out that the letter was never sent and that Clark should be protected from discipline because of attorney-client confidentiality.

Thursday’s decision on Clark by the three-person committee is preliminary. It came after seven days of testimony from former senior Justice Department officials who said Clark went against department findings when he drafted a letter that he wanted the Justice Department to send to Georgia officials, demanding that the state legislature call a special session to examine presidential votes in the state.

The chairman of the panel said Thursday’s findings were “preliminary” and “nonbiding.”

Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, argued Clark committed no ethics infractions because Clark believed there were voter violations in Georgia when he drafted the letter and the letter was never sent to Georgia officials.

Clark, who is facing criminal charges with Trump and others in Georgia for alleged efforts to overturn Trump’s electoral loss there, declined to testify at his disciplinary hearing, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“We have fought hard. I still feel the charge is unjust,” MacDougald said in closing arguments Thursday. “Mr. Clark’s career has been destroyed. He has been subjected to endless public ridicule. He has criminal jeopardy. The deterrent effect has already been accomplished.”

Hamilton “Phil” Fox III, lead prosecuting attorney for the disciplinary counsel, said he plans to seek disbarment for Clark.

MacDougald repeatedly argued that such disciplinary against Clark is “unprecedented” and that Clark should be allowed to continue to practice law in the District.