Jeffrey Clark, the former Trump administration official and lawyer who faced discipline proceedings over his role in January 6 litigation, has announced plans to launch a new law firm while awaiting a disbarment decision. Clark's strategy involves fighting what he characterizes as "barfare," a term he uses to describe what he views as baseless bar discipline.
Clark served as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division under former President Donald Trump. He gained prominence for his efforts to pressure the Department of Justice into investigating election fraud claims following the 2020 presidential election. His conduct during this period triggered investigations and complaints before multiple state bar associations.
The District of Columbia Bar has pursued disciplinary action against Clark. The bar complaint alleged that Clark violated professional conduct rules by making statements he knew were false or made with reckless disregard for their truth. The allegations centered on his communications regarding election integrity and his involvement in efforts to overturn election results through the Justice Department. Disciplinary proceedings in Washington, D.C. carry the potential for disbarment, suspension, or other sanctions depending on the severity of violations found.
Clark's announcement of a new law firm comes as these proceedings remain pending. His stated focus on combating what he frames as unjust bar discipline suggests he intends to continue legal practice despite the regulatory cloud hanging over his career. The timing raises questions about whether establishing a new firm entity could complicate or influence ongoing bar proceedings.
State bar associations regulate lawyer conduct through disciplinary processes governed by rules of professional conduct adopted in each jurisdiction. Disbarment represents the most severe sanction available to bar authorities. It permanently revokes a lawyer's license to practice law. Suspension temporarily prevents practice, typically for a defined period. Other sanctions include public reprimand, private reprimand, and fines.
The announcement of a new firm by Clark while facing disbarment proceedings presents several complications. Bar authorities might view establishing a new practice as evidence of intent to continue unauthorized practice if disbarred. Additionally, bar disciplinary committees consider a lawyer's response to discipline when determining appropriate sanctions. A defensive posture framed as fighting "barfare" rather than demonstrating remorse could influence the severity of disciplinary action.
Clark's characterization of discipline as "barfare," implying unfair or baseless action, reflects his broader approach to the multiple investigations and complaints filed against him across several jurisdictions. Similar disciplinary proceedings also exist before the North Carolina Bar, where Clark holds admission. That process involves separate allegations related to his conduct.
The legal implications extend beyond Clark personally. His case illustrates ongoing tensions around lawyer accountability for political activity and election-related advocacy. Bar associations nationwide face pressure to enforce professional conduct standards consistently while avoiding the appearance of political bias. Clark's situation tests whether bar discipline can proceed fairly against politically prominent figures whose conduct generates strong reactions on different sides.
The outcome of Clark's disciplinary proceedings will establish precedent regarding lawyer obligations when making public statements about contested legal and factual matters. Whether he maintains any license to practice law, establishes his new firm successfully, or faces disbarment will affect not only his career but also how bar authorities approach similar cases involving political advocacy.