FRANK RICCI: DC Bar Must Be Held Accountable For Lawfare Against Jeffrey Clark

The D.C. Bar’s recommendation to disbar Attorney Jeffrey Clark — a Harvard-educated former Justice Department official and currently Acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs — is a glaring example of political desperation masquerading as a pursuit of judicial ethics.

America’s justice system is inherently adversarial, built on the clash of opposing arguments to arrive at a legal conclusion. Lawyers are not punished for presenting unpopular legal theories, nor should they be. Every courtroom has winners and losers, but losing does not mean disbarment —especially when appeals and evolving legal standards often shift the final outcome.

Legal cases typically begin with theories, not conclusions. Those theories are stress-tested through discovery, depositions, and cross-examinations. Some will falter. Others will prevail. But none should lead to professional ruin merely because they challenge the status quo.

Even judges routinely issue dissents — opinions that don’t carry the day but later can become the backbone of future rulings. These dissents aren’t condemned; they’re celebrated and taught at law schools. Dissents, when well-reasoned according to the law, and not feelings demonstrate the very best of jurisprudence.

To single out Clark for proposing a legal strategy, one that was never adopted, let alone acted upon, is to criminalize the intellectual engine of law itself. As Mike Davis of Article III Project has taught us, politeness and policy is not enough to combat those who will weaponize the law for political benefit