Law360 (November 20, 2023, 2:19 PM EST) -- A D.C. ethics panel has rejected the attempt by a former U.S. Department of Justice official and former President Donald Trump ally accused [by D.C. Bar Ethics Counsel] of 2020 election-related ethics breaches to dodge the case based on what he asserted were "inconsistent theories," saying a hearing on the merits should be held.
In a brief order Friday, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility denied Jeffrey B. Clark's motion to dismiss ethics charges he faces, or in the alternative, require the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel to "pick one theory of violation and stick to it."
Citing board rules and a board precedent, the ethics board said that "once a specification of charges has been filed, 'the underlying purposes of the board require that we proceed directly to a hearing on the merits rather than being detoured into questions of pleading and form.'"
Clark will have a chance "to reassert his contentions in his post-hearing brief," Merril Hirsh, chair of the board's hearing committee, wrote in the order.
The Board on Professional Responsibility is appointed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, serving "as its disciplinary arm" and it is "responsible for the adjudication of disciplinary cases and the administration of the attorney discipline system," according to the D.C. Bar website.
The D.C. Court of Appeals "has the ultimate authority for disciplining members of the District of Columbia Bar for violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct," the website says.
In a brief order Friday, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility denied Jeffrey B. Clark's motion to dismiss ethics charges he faces, or in the alternative, require the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel to "pick one theory of violation and stick to it."
Citing board rules and a board precedent, the ethics board said that "once a specification of charges has been filed, 'the underlying purposes of the board require that we proceed directly to a hearing on the merits rather than being detoured into questions of pleading and form.'"
Clark will have a chance "to reassert his contentions in his post-hearing brief," Merril Hirsh, chair of the board's hearing committee, wrote in the order.
The Board on Professional Responsibility is appointed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, serving "as its disciplinary arm" and it is "responsible for the adjudication of disciplinary cases and the administration of the attorney discipline system," according to the D.C. Bar website.
The D.C. Court of Appeals "has the ultimate authority for disciplining members of the District of Columbia Bar for violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct," the website says.
No comments:
Post a Comment