Barr, Sessions and Mukasey defend Clark as DC bar weighs disbarment for Trump official

WASHINGTON — Three former U.S. attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals defending Jeffrey Clark, the Trump-era regulator who was at the center of a dispute over a 2020 letter urging state lawmakers to look into voting irregularities. The case centers on the District of Columbia Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility, which had recommended that Clark be disbarred for proposing state-level investigations of possible election fraud in December 2020. The amici said punishing Clark for private, internal drafting would threaten the integrity of federal counsel who must provide candid legal advice, even on controversial questions.

Barr, Sessions and Mukasey argued in the 23-page filing that they did not endorse the legal strategy embedded in the letter, but they warned that disciplining a federal lawyer for internal discussions or proposals would set a dangerous precedent. They contended such a move could chill the advice federal lawyers give, and would amount to political retribution that could hinder public service within the Justice Department and other agencies.

Clark’s case has drawn scrutiny over how bar disciplinary bodies handle internal communications and drafts versus public statements. The disciplinary board described Clark’s actions as persistently and energetically seeking to promote state-level probes on a major national issue, and it said that he should be disbarred to send a message that such behavior will not be tolerated. The board noted that the actions occurred in the context of a December 2020 letter that officials in the DOJ and White House had seen, but which Clark’s counsel has argued was never intended for public release.

The amicus brief highlighted what the former attorneys general see as a disparity in treatment in related cases. They pointed to former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who was suspended for one year after pleading guilty to falsifying documents in a warrant application related to monitoring a 2016 Trump campaign aide. The brief notes that Clinesmith’s license was restored well before his probation ended, contrasting that outcome with the current push to disbar Clark. The argument is that the bar’s handling in Clinesmith’s case shows a markedly different standard than the one now applied to Clark.

Clark’s own defender, attorney Harry MacDougald, has argued that his client never lied about anything and has criticized what he described as double standards in how similar issues are treated. He has said that Clark’s private, internal work product should not be punished in the public record or used to justify disbarment, especially when no criminal conviction involved and when the information involved was never publicly released.

The DC Bar’s disciplinary board had called for disbarment based on Clark’s December 2020 letter and its circulation within the department and White House, framing the action as a serious professional failing. Supporters of Clark contend that punishing him for private recommendations would chill internal discussions and undermine the government’s ability to seek possible corrections or investigations through proper channels.

As of the filing of the amicus brief, the D.C. Court of Appeals had not issued a ruling on Clark’s licensing status. The argument by Barr, Sessions and Mukasey adds a new dimension to the dispute, situating it within broader questions about the independence of federal counsel and the consequences of publicizing or punishing internal legal opinions. The case remains a focal point in debates over ethics, accountability and the limits of disciplinary action within the federal legal system.