The chair of a Washington, D.C., attorney ethics committee expressed deep concerns Thursday regarding former U.S. Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark's persistent requests for postponements in the disciplinary proceedings against him. These concerns come as Clark continues to seek further delays, all while grappling with criminal charges in Georgia.

Clark's DC Ethics Case : Chair's Concerns

Merril Hirsh, who presides over a hearing committee of the D.C Court of Appeals' Board on Professional Responsibility, didn't mince words during a remote prehearing conference. He remarked, "that there is a serial request for delay" in Clark's case. Addressing Clark's attorney, Harry W. MacDougald of Caldwell Carlson Elliott & DeLoach, Hirsh acknowledged the forceful arguments presented but questioned how long it would take to reach the core issue. He said, "how many years are we going to go through before we get to the question of considering whether those arguments have merit?"

Charges and Developments

The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, aiming to disbar the former DOJ attorney, initiated charges of professional misconduct in July 2022, implicating Clark in former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Clark, who did not attend the Thursday conference, has persistently pursued avenues to halt the D.C. disciplinary proceedings. He encountered additional challenges in August when he, along with Trump and others, faced criminal charges in Georgia in connection to a broad election interference case.

On Thursday, Hirsh tentatively scheduled Clark's disciplinary hearing for early January, revealing that Clark plans to call 42 witnesses.

In contrast, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel anticipates presenting just two primary witnesses and potentially a few more, according to Hamilton P. "Phil" Fox III, the head of the office.

Clark's DC Ethics Case : Deferred Decision

Hirsh also heard arguments regarding Clark's request to delay the disciplinary case while the Georgia criminal case remains unresolved. He reserved judgment on this matter, intending to make a recommendation to the Board on Professional Responsibility chair.

Clark's DC Ethics Case : Ethics Charges

The D.C. ethics charges primarily revolve around a "proof of concept" letter attributed to Clark. The letter aimed to lend the DOJ's support to Trump's efforts to overturn the election results, containing false and misleading statements. Among these was the assertion that the federal agency had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election" in Georgia and other states.

The case against Clark in Georgia similarly centers on the "exact same letter," noted MacDougald during Thursday's proceedings.

Related Criminal Matter

In recent filings with the disciplinary board, Clark stated that deferring an ethics case until the resolution of a related criminal matter was the typical approach. He added that it would help address Fifth Amendment concerns.

However, the disciplinary office opposes deferring the case. They argue that there is no substantial likelihood that the criminal proceedings will resolve critical issues in the disciplinary case. Additionally, a deferral could lead to indefinite delays, and board rules do not permit deferral to protect Fifth Amendment rights.

No Immediate Comments

Counsel for Clark did not immediately respond to requests for comments following the hearing. The disciplinary office declined to comment on the ongoing proceedings.

Clark is represented by Harry W. MacDougald of Caldwell Carlson Elliott & DeLoach, Charles Burnham of Burnham & Gorokhov PLLC, and Robert A. Destro.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is represented in-house by Hamilton P. "Phil" Fox III, Theodore "Jack" Metzler, and Jason R. Horrell.