D.C. Bar Disciplinary Panel Declines to Investigate Ed Martin
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel declined to launch a probe of Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney, over an alleged ethics violation he committed when he sought to dismiss the criminal charges of a man whom he represented as a defense attorney.
“[W]e decline to open a full investigation of this matter and have closed this file,” wrote Hamilton P. Fox, the head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in a February letter addressed to the complainant and obtained by Lawfare.
Fox penned the letter in response to a complaint filed by Jennifer Jensen, an insurance agent who resides in Utah. Jensen’s complaint alleged that Martin violated conflict of interest rules when he signed off on a motion to dismiss the case against Joseph Padilla, a convicted Capitol riot defendant whom President Donald Trump had pardoned. Martin, who had previously worked as defense counsel on Padilla’s case, was still listed as one of Padilla’s attorneys when he filed the motion to dismiss on behalf of the Justice Department.
Rule 1.7(a) of the D.C. bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer “shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter.”
In declining to further investigate Jensen’s complaint, Fox noted that Martin’s actions in Padilla’s case were dictated by Trump’s sweeping pardons for people who participated in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
“By moving on behalf of the United States to dismiss the prosecution against a defendant, as the pardons required the United States to do, Mr. Martin was not advancing an adverse position to either the defendant or the United States,” he wrote.
While acknowledging that it was “unseemly” for Martin to appear for the Justice Department in a matter for which he has served as defense counsel, Fox explained that “there is no rule prohibiting lawyers from giving the appearance of impropriety.”
“Hence, there could be no rule violation, and we decline to docket this matter for further investigation,” he concluded.
Martin has faced other complaints regarding his professional conduct as interim U.S. attorney. Last month, democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee lodged a complaint against Martin with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The letter cited a range of alleged abuses carried out by Martin, including his conduct in Padilla’s case and “using the threat of prosecution to intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens.”
It remains unclear whether the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel will launch a probe in response to the complaint filed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Read the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s response to Jensen here or below:
