Ben Weingarten writes for the Federalist about a recent US Justice Department action.
On Tuesday, word came that the legal disciplinary authority in Washington, D.C., was charging U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin with ethics violations, kicking off proceedings that could result in penalties up to and including disbarment.
In so doing, it might have just helped make the case for the action the Trump Justice Department recently initiated to begin to combat the weaponization of such bar disciplinary tribunals — namely, against conservatives.
The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility alleges that while serving as U.S. attorney last year, Martin — a conservative stalwart long loathed by the left — violated local rules of legal conduct in probing Georgetown Law School for its alleged continued promotion of DEI in its curriculum, and refusing to hire those affiliated with the school until it purged DEI accordingly.
“Lawfare/Barfare is alive & well,” said Jeff Clark, the recently departed chief Trump administration regulatory officer. “Apparently, DC’s Disciplinary Counsel cares not that 1) DEI is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection of the laws; & 2) the President had issued an executive order banning it if an institution takes federal money. Blatantly political.” …
… Now, the Trump Department of Justice may finally be mounting a counterattack. On Feb. 26, it proposed a rule that would provide DOJ lawyers past and present with a modicum of protection from frivolous complaints by giving the attorney general the ability to intervene when they come under siege.
Under the proposal, should a third party lodge a bar complaint against such a lawyer alleging that he committed ethical violations while conducting federal work, or should disciplinary authorities “open an investigation into such allegations” absent a complaint, the U.S. AG would have a “right of first review” — to examine the case and suspend disciplinary investigations or proceedings pending the conclusion of her examination. Should bar authorities refuse to comply, the department could then “take appropriate action to prevent” such interference.
