Disciplinary Counsel Cites Yours Truly

District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel has filed its response to what it characterizes as Jeffrey Clark’s “outlandish” effort to further delay the day of judgment in the already-delayed bar discipline case arising from his attempt to use the Department of Justice to overturn the established results of the 2020 Presidential election.

The pleading was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in opposition to Respondent’s attempt to stay the order remanding the matter to the disciplinary system.

Disciplinary Counsel contends that the Respondent’s effort to remove the case to federal court is a “doomed prospect.”

Money quote from the conclusion

The public interest favors a prompt resolution of this disciplinary matter. Delays in D.C.’s attorney disciplinary system have long been an issue of public importance and concern. See, e.g., Peter H. Wolf, Fifteen Years for One Disciplinary Case?!, 150 D.W.L.R. 2938 (Nov. 22, 2022); Michael S. Frisch, No Stone Left Unturned: The Failure of Attorney Self-regulation in the District of Columbia, 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 325 (2005). The three levels of review discussed above (pp. 17-18) take long enough; the process should not be halted for multiple levels of appellate review on Clark’s frivolous removal arguments. Delays in disciplinary proceedings fail to protect the public and reinforce the impression that the disciplinary system is too friendly to attorneys who violate their professional obligations. Those concerns are heightened in this case because Clark’s highly public misconduct occurred more than two years ago. Clark’s removals have already delayed this matter by nine months, and a stay would serve only to prolong the delay. Indeed, in his stream of filings since this Court granted the motions to remand, Clark has repeatedly made clear that he will ensure the delay is as lengthy as possible, promising to seek both rehearing en banc after losing in the D.C. Circuit and certiorari in the Supreme Court after that. Finally, Clark’s misconduct was of a most grievous nature. He attempted to undermine the basic premise of a democracy: the winner of a majority of the votes is elected to office. He did so by attempting to coerce the Acting Attorney General of the United States to intervene in a presidential election based upon a baseless and dishonest claim of election fraud. This was one of many steps to deny the 2020 election results and attempt to perpetuate a losing incumbent in power. There is little dispute as to what Clark did. His conduct is documented in the public record and he has not denied it. There is an overwhelming public interest in promptly resolving these disciplinary charges. Clark has delayed this matter for nine months already. He should not be permitted to do so any longer.

(Mike Frisch)