Status Reports Ordered In Jeffrey Clark Bar Case

An order was entered yesterday in the unduly delayed bar discipline matter alleging misconduct by Jeffrey B. Clark. 

Except for Respondent, all the lawyers argued against appointing Respondent as Acting Attorney General. All but Respondent opposed sending the Proof of Concept letter [allegedly falsely advising that the Department of Justice was investigating election fraud]  because it contained false statements. Respondent stated that he would send the Proof of Concept letter if the President appointed him Acting Attorney General.

Mr. Donoghue informed the President that if Respondent were appointed, then he should expect that all the Assistant Attorneys General would resign. He stated that he had not had time to consult with the United States Attorneys, but he believed it was likely that a number of them would also resign along with career Department employees. The White House Counsel also threatened to resign. The President decided not to appoint Respondent Acting Attorney General, and the Proof of Concept letter was never sent

Hearing Committee No. Ten ordered both parties to file a status report no later than June 23.

The reports shall address rescheduling the hearing, any issues the parties believe need be addressed, proposed intermediate dates that need to be scheduled in advance of the hearing and state whether a further prehearing conference is appropriate or necessary.

Here’s betting that Respondent Clark will seek a delay of the hearing pending appellate review of the District Court order remanding the matter to the D.C. disciplinary system.

Here’s hoping the request for further delay, if made, is denied.

Link here.

Editor’s note: When I argued before the D.C. Court of Appeals that a Presidential pardon cannot absolve one from professional discipline in In re Abrams, I had the opportunity to study and reflect upon the masterful dissent of Mr. Justice Samuel Miller in the case of Ex Parte Garland.

The case involved the bar membership of a pardoned member of the Confederate Congress.

Little did I anticipate that his views on bar membership for traitors to our Constitution in 1866 would be so relevant in 2023

It may be hoped that the exceptional circumstances which give present importance to these cases will soon pass away, and that those who make the laws, both state and national, will find in the conduct of the persons affected by the legislation just declared to be void, sufficient reason to repeal, or essentially modify it.

For the speedy return of that better spirit, which shall leave us no cause for such laws, all good men look with anxiety, and with a hope, I trust, not altogether unfounded.

But the question involved, relating, as it does, to the right of the legislatures of the nation, and of the state, to exclude from offices and places of high public trust, the administration of whose functions are essential to the very existence of the government, those among its own citizens who have been engaged in a recent effort to destroy that government by force, can never cease to be one of profound interest.

(Mike Frisch)