On Thursday, July 31, 2025, the District of Columbia Court Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that attorney Jeffrey B. Clark be disbarred for attempting to make false statements about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The recommendation stems from Clark’s actions as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in late 2020 and early 2021.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Jeffrey B. Clark,” with case number 22-BD-039.
Clark drafted a letter between December 28, 2020, and January 3, 2021, urging Justice Department leaders to claim that investigations had uncovered significant concerns about election irregularities that could have affected results in multiple states, including Georgia.
The letter, intended as a “Proof of Concept” to be sent to several states, recommended that the Georgia legislature convene a special session to investigate alleged election issues and potentially appoint electors regardless of the certified popular vote. It was to be sent on Justice Department letterhead, signed by Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and Clark.
Rosen and Donoghue, who were informed about the Justice Department’s election investigations, refused to sign the letter, stating it was factually inaccurate. They informed Clark that the Justice Department had not identified evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, a position previously stated by then-Attorney General William Barr. Despite their warnings, Clark persisted in advocating for the letter’s issuance without providing evidence to support his claims.
Clark also considered accepting an offer from then-President Donald Trump to replace Rosen as Acting Attorney General to pursue nationwide election investigations. During a January 3, 2021, Oval Office meeting attended by Trump, Rosen, Donoghue, White House Counsel, and others, Clark argued for his appointment as Acting Attorney General to conduct these investigations. Others present opposed the move, warning of mass resignations within the Justice Department and White House Counsel’s office. Trump ultimately decided against appointing Clark, citing the potential for significant disruption.
The Board found that Clark’s continued push for the letter, despite knowing it contained false statements, constituted an attempt to violate Rule 8.4(a) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attempts to engage in dishonest conduct.
The Hearing Committee initially recommended a two-year suspension with a fitness requirement, but the Board, by majority, escalated the recommendation to disbarment. Two Board members suggested a three-year suspension with a fitness requirement instead.
The Board rejected Clark’s procedural arguments, including claims that the D.C. attorney discipline system is unconstitutional and that he was immune from prosecution under a recent Supreme Court decision.
The recommendation emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and deter similar misconduct. The Board noted that Clark’s actions involved urging the Justice Department to make false statements on a critical national issue, justifying the severe sanction.
The recommendation states:
“For the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) in that he attempted to violate Rule 8.4(c), and we recommend that he be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia.”
The case now awaits a final decision from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
According to the filing, Mr. Clark acquired his law license in DC in 1997.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
