WASHINGTON — Three former U.S. attorneys general have voiced their opposition to the disbarment proceedings against Jeffrey Clark, who served as President Trump’s regulatory czar in Washington, D.C., despite one of them, Bill Barr, having previously critiqued the ex-Department of Justice official for urging state legislatures to examine “voting irregularities” during the 2020 election.
Barr, along with Jeff Sessions and Michael Mukasey, submitted an amicus brief to the DC Court of Appeals on Thursday, supporting Clark after a disciplinary board from the district bar proposed that Clark should lose his law license for endorsing state-level investigations into potential election fraud in a December 2020 correspondence while he was the acting assistant attorney general at the DOJ.
The former attorneys general expressed that although they were not entirely convinced by the legal strategy outlined in the draft letter, penalizing Clark for providing recommendations that were meant to remain confidential would establish a perilous precedent, as cited in their 23-page submission facilitated by Boyden Gray PLLC.
“Disciplining Mr. Clark would pave the way for accusations against federal attorneys concerning ‘dishonesty’ or ‘attempted dishonesty’ over statements made during legal arguments, theories presented in briefs, legal counsel given in memoranda, or even (in this case) proposals in privileged internal draft documents and conversations,” they stated.
“Such actions, perceived as political vendettas, would significantly deter lawyers from working in federal roles and catalyze severe dysfunction as federal attorneys would hesitate to offer their advice due to fear of political backlash from the Bar.”
A committee within the DC Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility had earlier proposed in an August 2024 initial report that Clark should be barred from practicing law for a period of two years.
Nevertheless, on July 31, the entirety of the DC Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility recommended permanent disbarment for Clark.
Currently, Clark occupies the role of acting administrator at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the White House Office of Management and Budget, a position that does not necessitate a law license.
The board noted, “Lawyers cannot advocate for an outcome built on false statements, nor can they encourage others to do so.”
According to the board, Clark “actively and persistently sought to do exactly that regarding a crucial national matter.” They concluded that he should face disbarment as a necessary consequence and to signal to the remainder of the legal community and the public that such conduct is intolerable.
Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, responded at the time by asserting that Clark had “never lied about anything to anybody.”
MacDougald remarked, “They are attempting to disbar Jeff Clark for the ‘crime’ of privately suggesting further scrutiny into the 2020 election; this amounts to a thought crime and a miscarriage of justice.”
Both MacDougald and the former attorneys general pointed out that ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was only given a one-year suspension after confessing to misleading actions related to court documents for surveillance of 2016 Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
MacDougald quipped, “If it weren’t for double standards, they would have no standards at all.”
“The Board retroactively suspended Mr. Clinesmith for just one year,” the AGs wrote in their brief, “and even reinstated his license before his probation was completed.”
“The stark contrast to Mr. Clark’s situation is astonishing,” they observed, adding, “The Board seeks to disbar Mr. Clark instead of merely suspending his license, without any criminal conviction or false statements made in a court setting.”
