WASHINGTON, March 10 - Ed Martin, a Justice Department official currently serving as the department's pardon attorney, has been accused in a formal disciplinary complaint of using his official authority to pressure Georgetown University Law Center to stop teaching diversity, equity and inclusion, according to court filings made public on Tuesday.
The charges, brought by the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, contend that a February 2025 letter Martin sent while acting as interim U.S. Attorney in Washington transgressed constitutional protections for free speech and due process, and therefore violated ethics rules that require attorneys to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The complaint singles out language in the letter in which Martin warned that his office would not hire anyone affiliated with the law school "until this is resolved." It quotes from the disciplinary filing that, "Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of DEI."
Hamilton "Phil" Fox, head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, is identified as the filer of the complaint. The filing also accuses Martin of improperly attempting to communicate directly with the chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals - the court that oversees the disciplinary office and is responsible for determining any final sanction against a lawyer.
If a hearing panel or the D.C. Court of Appeals finds Martin committed professional misconduct, the sanctions could range up to suspension or revocation of his license to practice law. The filing gives Martin the opportunity to file a formal response within 20 days.
Martin's role in the Justice Department has drawn attention throughout his tenure in the Trump administration. He previously served as interim U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., a post he vacated after failing to secure sufficient support in the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to be confirmed permanently. He was later assigned to lead a Justice Department effort to investigate alleged improper uses of the legal system against former President Trump and his allies during the Biden administration. That assignment was removed from him in recent months after the department began reviewing his conduct related to mortgage fraud investigations involving individuals described as perceived political adversaries of Trump.
Responding to the disciplinary filing, a Justice Department spokesperson accused the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of partisan motives. The spokesperson said, "The D.C. bar's attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization's agenda," and did not offer examples to support that claim in the statement accompanying the comment.
The timing of the charges follows a separate move by the Justice Department under the Trump administration to propose a rule intended to limit or constrain ethics investigations launched by states or by the District of Columbia into Justice Department attorneys. The court filing against Martin came days after that proposed rule was announced.
The discipline complaint focuses on the intersection of official action, free speech protections and professional responsibilities. It alleges that Martin, while operating in an official capacity, sought to use departmental hiring as leverage against a law school's curricular content, and that he overstepped by attempting to contact the chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals outside appropriate channels.
Martin now serves as the Justice Department's pardon attorney. The disciplinary process established under D.C. rules will determine whether the conduct alleged in the complaint amounts to professional misconduct warranting public sanction, and the D.C. Court of Appeals remains the ultimate arbiter of any resulting discipline.
Key points
- The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed charges saying Ed Martin used his official role to try to stop Georgetown Law's DEI teaching.
- The complaint centers on a February 2025 letter in which Martin vowed his office would not hire any Georgetown Law affiliates "until this is resolved."
- The Justice Department called the disciplinary action politically biased; if misconduct is found Martin could face suspension or revocation of his law license.
Risks and uncertainties
- Outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is uncertain - a finding of misconduct could affect the perceived independence of Justice Department staffing decisions and has implications for legal-sector confidence.
- Potential policy changes - the Justice Department's proposed rule to limit ethics investigations by states or D.C. introduces uncertainty for oversight of federal lawyers and could affect regulatory dynamics in the legal profession.
Sectors impacted
- Legal services and regulatory oversight
- Higher education, particularly law schools
- Government legal operations and personnel management