The D.C. Bar's panel of responsibility found on Thursday that Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, probably breached at least one ethics rule in trying to aid former President Trump in remaining in power after the 2020 presidential election.
The decision is not final and may change, as stated by the disciplinary hearing committee on Thursday. However, following several days of testimony, the panel determined that the 'disciplinary counsel has proven at least one violation of any of the charged disciplinary rules.'
Clark is accused of trying to engage in dishonest conduct and conduct that 'would seriously interfere with the administration of justice,' according to Hamilton Fox III, the disciplinary counsel. wrote in the initial charge filing in July 2022.
The initial, non-binding decision now triggers further proceedings to determine the appropriate sanctions for Clark. Fox stated that he would seek disbarment for Clark.
The allegations primarily revolved around a 'Proof of Concept' draft letter that Clark had drafted following the 2020 election and sent to Georgia public officials.
The letter falsely claimed that the Department of Justice 'identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in the United States, including the State of Georgia,' and urged the state Legislature to convene a special session. It contained numerous other false claims.
At the time, Clark submitted the letter to senior Justice Department officials Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue for their signatures. However, they declined to authorize the letter, citing its falsehoods. Instead, they authorized Clark to receive briefings from top officials regarding the election fraud investigations' results.
During the initial hearing last week, Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, called the proceedings against Clark unprecedented, stating that the letter was not intended for public release and should have been protected by various privileges, as per The Associated Press. MacDougald claimed that the letter was part of normal lawyer discussions and that penalizing Clark under those circumstances would have a 'chilling effect,' according to the AP.
