The Daily Fuckup

The Justice Department on May 13 filed a complaint against D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility, arguing that the bar process was improperly used to police the official conduct of federal government lawyers. The filing says it is part of President Donald Trump’s executive order ending the “weaponization” of the federal government and a separate presidential memorandum on abuses of the legal system. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-dc-bar-disciplinary-authorities-over-their))

The complaint focuses on Jeffrey Clark, the former assistant attorney general whose conduct after the 2020 election has been the subject of years of disciplinary and court proceedings. DOJ says the bar’s prosecution of Clark should be nullified because it stemmed from internal Justice Department deliberations about possible election fraud and, in the department’s view, crossed into the regulation of executive branch decision-making. The underlying Board report is not a final order of discipline, and the PDF of the report notes that the final disciplinary authority rests with the D.C. Court of Appeals. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-dc-bar-disciplinary-authorities-over-their))

The Board on Professional Responsibility issued its report and recommendation in July 2025. The report states that Clark, then the assistant attorney general overseeing the Civil Division, urged Justice Department leaders to issue a draft letter that cast doubt on the election results. That procedural posture matters: DOJ is not erasing a completed sanction, but asking a court to unwind the disciplinary case before the D.C. Court of Appeals finishes review. ([dcbar.org](https://www.dcbar.org/ServeFile/GetDisciplinaryActionFile?fileName=JeffreyBClark22BD039.pdf))

The filing also dovetails with the administration’s broader effort to frame certain investigations and disciplinary actions as improper “weaponization.” DOJ cited its earlier statement of interest in support of former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, who is seeking to move his own disciplinary matter into federal court. For now, the practical effect of the new complaint is limited to the litigation itself, but it puts the D.C. disciplinary system back under direct federal attack in one of the city’s most politically sensitive legal fights. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-dc-bar-disciplinary-authorities-over-their))