Jeffrey Clark, a former senior official in the U.S. Justice Department, faces a disciplinary hearing over alleged misconduct as he aligned with former President Donald Trump‘s endeavors to challenge the 2020 election outcome, a Washington ethics lawyer stated on Tuesday.
Describing Clark’s actions as a “coup attempt,” Hamilton “Phil” Fox, the District of Columbia Bar disciplinary counsel, emphasized the severity of the situation in his opening argument.
Clark’s attempts to lead the Justice Department as Trump pursued baseless claims of widespread election fraud came under scrutiny.
Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, countered the allegations, asserting that Clark merely engaged in internal departmental discussions regarding election integrity. MacDougald defended Clark’s actions as reflections of his “candid opinion and independent judgment.”
At the heart of the matter are ethics charges accusing Clark of seeking to take actions involving dishonesty that would undermine the administration of justice.
One such instance involves Clark’s bid to send a letter to Georgia officials falsely suggesting concerns about election integrity, according to charges filed in 2022.
The disciplinary hearing, conducted by a committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility, could result in consequences ranging from suspension to revocation of Clark’s law license.
The case was initiated by the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, responsible for investigating alleged violations of legal ethics.
Clark’s involvement in Trump’s legal battles over the 2020 election extends beyond this ethics hearing.
He faces criminal charges in Georgia and federal court in Washington related to efforts to overturn the election results. Notably, Clark was listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the federal case.
Expected to testify during the hearing are former Justice Department leaders, including Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue, who opposed Clark’s proposed actions. Republican figures such as Matt Gaetz and Mark Meadows may also appear as witnesses in Clark’s defense.
