The Department of Justice has sued the D.C. bar disciplinary authorities to stop proceedings against former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, arguing the actions unlawfully target executive-branch lawyers for internal deliberations and violate constitutional protections for federal functions.
On Wednesday the DOJ filed suit challenging the District of Columbia’s bar disciplinary apparatus over proceedings tied to Jeffrey Clark’s post-2020 election work. The complaint frames the case as consistent with the administration’s efforts to stop what it calls the weaponization of legal processes and to protect internal Executive Branch deliberations.
The defendants named include the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, disciplinary officials, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, the D.C. Court of Appeals, and the District of Columbia itself. The suit seeks to enjoin disciplinary actions against Clark that stem from his role in reviewing and drafting internal DOJ communications about disputed election matters in Georgia.
Clark previously held senior DOJ roles, including Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and acting head of the Civil Division. He was named in the Georgia criminal case alongside others and later received a presidential pardon in November 2025 after charges related to that matter were dismissed.
The disciplinary matter centers on an internal draft DOJ letter about alleged election irregularities in Georgia that was never sent outside the Department. The complaint stresses that the document was marked “pre-decisional and deliberative,” and that it reflected internal Executive Branch discussions that were ultimately rejected by DOJ leadership.
Despite those facts, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended in July 2025 that Clark lose his law license, and Clark has appealed that recommendation. The DOJ’s lawsuit argues the disciplinary probe is an improper attempt by local authorities to regulate federal executive functions and to punish a federal attorney for work done in the course of official duties.
DOJ sets out three central legal claims in the complaint. Count I alleges unconstitutional regulation of the federal government under the Supremacy Clause. Count Two alleges discriminatory treatment of federal attorneys compared with other lawyers. Count Three alleges unconstitutional interference with Executive Branch authority under Article II.
The central legal theory is straightforward: if states or local bar authorities can discipline federal lawyers for internal advice or deliberations, those bodies would be able to chill candid legal analysis inside the Executive Branch. The DOJ complaint argues that permitting local disciplinary proceedings in these circumstances would let non-federal actors second-guess and punish the exercise of federal duties.
The filing contrasts this approach with prior disciplinary outcomes in other matters, noting as an example a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email tied to the Carter Page FISA matter and received a shorter suspension rather than disbarment. The complaint uses that disparity to question why an unsent internal draft would trigger a disbarment recommendation for Clark.
DOJ asks the court to declare the disciplinary proceedings unconstitutional, to block further action tied to Clark’s government service, and to issue a permanent injunction preventing similar efforts against federal attorneys acting within their official roles. The suit seeks judicial protection for internal deliberations and for the Executive Branch’s ability to receive candid legal advice.
Embedded materials in the original filing and accompanying coverage appear near this account and have been preserved here. The complaint also details alleged examples of bias by a senior disciplinary official and references a broader pattern of what the DOJ characterizes as partisan conduct by the D.C. bar.
The DOJ released a public statement alongside the lawsuit that includes pointed language about the D.C. bar’s behavior. The release quotes senior Justice Department officials at length and frames the action as part of a larger effort to protect federal attorneys and their ability to advise the President and agency leaders without fear of local retaliation.
“As our complaint and history make clear, the DC Bar has long acted as a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes. No more,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“President Trump promised to put an end to the weaponization of the legal process, and today’s lawsuit against the D.C. Bar makes good on that promise,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. “The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree, and Federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues.”
Just last week, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in support of former interim United States Attorney Ed Martin, who is seeking to have the D.C. Bar’s unlawful prosecution of him heard in a neutral Federal tribunal.
As three former Attorneys General recently recognized, the D.C. Bar’s efforts to discipline Justice Department attorneys “for making recommendations, factual assertions, and providing legal advice during confidential internal agency deliberations on law enforcement and sensitive public policy” are “improper and constitutionally impermissible.”
The case was assigned to Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, and the DOJ’s filing seeks both declaratory relief and injunctive measures to prevent further disciplinary actions tied to federal duties.
Add comment