A disciplinary complaint has been filed over Ed Martin’s conduct after he pressed Georgetown Law about its diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and threatened sanctions, sparking sharp pushback from the Justice Department and GOP allies who call the review politically motivated. The case centers on a letter Martin sent while serving as interim U.S. attorney for D.C., and the dispute has landed with the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. This fight raises bigger questions about how state bars handle complaints against Trump-era officials and whether politics drives enforcement. The Justice Department has publicly accused the D.C. Bar of uneven treatment toward those serving the previous administration.
The formal charge, submitted last Friday and published this week, focuses on a letter Martin sent to Georgetown Law in February while he was acting U.S. attorney. According to the complaint, Martin demanded information about Georgetown’s DEI practices and teachings and, without “further explanation,” moved to impose restrictions when no response came. He allegedly ordered staff not to consider students, fellows, or interns affiliated with the school, signaling a punitive posture rather than a routine inquiry. That escalation is the core of the disciplinary team’s allegations.
The Justice Department has been blunt in its reaction, calling the complaint another “clear indication” of what it views as partisan behavior by the D.C. Bar and arguing that the organization has targeted Trump officials while ignoring issues tied to prior administrations. DOJ spokespeople framed the case as evidence the Bar is prepared to punish those aligned with President Trump, and they used the word “partisan” to describe the treatment. Those comments reflect a broader GOP concern that professional discipline can be used as a political weapon. The department’s response has amplified scrutiny of how disciplinary counsel operates.
The complaint was lodged by Hamilton Fox, the disciplinary counsel for the D.C. Bar, who functions much like a prosecutor in attorney misconduct matters. Public records show Fox contributed to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, a fact the filing notes as background on potential bias. The ethics brief accuses Martin of using his government office to press a university to alter its teachings and of failing to give Georgetown a deadline to reply. It also claims he threatened adverse action because of a particular viewpoint taught at the school, which the complaint frames as a constitutional concern.
Authorities also allege Martin engaged in unauthorized communications with judges after he was asked to respond to the complaint, including emails to the chief and senior judges of the D.C. Circuit. The filing quotes Martin accusing Disciplinary Counsel of “uneven behavior,” and it says he asked for a “face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,” actions that allegedly included copying White House counsel. Those ex parte contacts are cited as further grounds for review and are central to the procedural part of the case. The complaint argues these steps violated standard rules about communications in pending disciplinary investigations.
Todd Blanche, the Justice Department’s second-highest official, attacked the D.C. Bar on social media, writing: “The DC Bar is such a blatantly Democrat-run political organization.” “Thank God I’m not a member, and trust me, I never will be,” Blanche said in a Martin, a former defense attorney who represented individuals charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, drew attention during his brief tenure at DOJ. His confirmation to serve as U.S. Attorney for D.C. stalled in the Senate, and President Trump later placed him in the role of pardon attorney amid that friction. Those career twists have only heightened the partisan temperature around this matter.
Beyond the Georgetown episode, Martin was tapped to lead an internal Justice Department unit labeled the Weaponization Working Group, intended to review prosecutions the administration views as politically motivated. He was removed from that role last month; no official reason for the removal was announced. The disciplinary complaint now moves to the D.C. Court of Appeals for further consideration, a process that the filing notes is typically slow and could drag on for months. That timeline gives critics time to argue the Bar is weaponizing procedure rather than seeking swift clarity.
The timing coincides with a broader DOJ proposal to change how state bar investigations interact with federal reviews: the department has published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would let DOJ pause state bar probes while it conducts its own inquiries. Supporters say the change would prevent duplicated or conflicting investigations; opponents worry it could shield federal actors from state oversight. The interplay between state disciplinary bodies and the federal department promises to remain a flashpoint as this complaint works its way through the system.
https://x.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/2031393408258834576
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.