Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have filed a proper grievance towards District of Columbia U.S. legal professional Ed Martin with the D.C. Workplace of Disciplinary Counsel, accusing him of dismissing legal expenses towards his personal shoppers and threatening prosecution towards authorities staff to intimidate them.
“We write to express our grave concern about actions taken by Edward Robert Martin, Jr. that may constitute professional misconduct under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct,” wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Unwell.), the rating member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The letter, signed by all 10 Democrats on the Judiciary panel, asks for the disciplinary counsel, which is overseen by the D.C. Courtroom of Appeals, to research whether or not Martin, a member of the D.C. Bar, violated guidelines {of professional} conduct.
“When a government lawyer, particularly one entrusted with a leadership role in the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency, commits serious violations of professional conduct, it undermines the integrity of our justice system and erodes public confidence in it,” they wrote.
Particularly, the lawmakers say Martin, whereas in non-public observe, served as protection counsel in a number of instances associated to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, earlier than personally submitting a movement to dismiss felony and misdemeanor counts towards Joseph Padilla and failing to recuse himself from the case as appearing U.S. legal professional, creating “an impermissible conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety by using his new government office to favor his client.”
They are saying Martin additionally appeared as protection counsel for an additional Jan. 6 defendant, William Chrestman, a member of the Proud Boys’s Kansas Metropolis chapter, who was sentenced to greater than 4 years in jail after pleading responsible to obstruction of an official continuing and threatening a federal officer.
Democrats say Martin solely moved to withdraw his illustration of Chrestman after initiating an inside evaluation of the fees towards his consumer, creating “an appearance of impropriety.”
Senate Democrats say there’s additionally proof Martin communicated straight with Jan. 6 defendants who weren’t his shoppers after his appointment as interim U.S. legal professional, together with William Pope, who was charged with a felony and 4 misdemeanors associated to the assault on the Capitol.
They are saying that if Martin communicated straight with Pope, he “created the looks of impropriety as a result of he could also be known as as a witness for the defendant in a matter involving the workplace he at present leads.”
They argue Martin has violated the D.C. Bar’s prohibition on representing a consumer if the consumer could also be adversely affected by the lawyer’s tasks to or pursuits in a 3rd social gathering.
“Under this rule, Mr. Martin cannot effectively represent the United States in taking any investigative or prosecutorial steps against Mr. Padilla, including steps favorable to Mr. Padilla, in the same matter in which he defended and still represented Mr. Padilla,” they wrote.
They are saying Martin probably violated the prohibition of any conduct that interferes with the administration of justice and that his illustration of Padilla and Chrestman “creates an look of impropriety in any evaluation or prosecutorial steps associated to his workplace’s dealing with of obstruction expenses towards Jan. 6 defendants.”
And his alleged communications with Pope doubtless prohibits an legal professional’s involvement in a case during which they’re prone to be a obligatory witness, they argued.
As well as, Democratic senators are elevating alarm over what they are saying are the “numerous extrajudicial statements” Martin has made threatening prosecution “with the apparent intent of intimidating government employees and chilling the speech of private citizens.”
They cite a Feb. 3 social media publish and letter to Elon Musk, the chief of the Division of Authorities Effectivity, threatening to “pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people.”
Additionally they level to a Feb. 14 publish threatening former particular counsel Jack Smith, who dealt with two legal instances towards President Trump earlier than he received the 2024 election.
They usually observe a Feb. 19 announcement that the U.S. legal professional’s workplace would examine Senate Democratic Chief Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as a part of a crackdown on these liable for threats to authorities officers, citing his March 2020 assertion at a rally in entrance of the Supreme Courtroom that conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would “pay the price” for voting towards abortion rights.
Martin has since dropped plans to research Schumer after concluding his statements didn’t current a “true threat” that might be prosecuted.
“Mr. Martin’s conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice Investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law,” the Democrats wrote.
They requested the Workplace of Disciplinary Counsel to provoke an investigation and take “appropriate disciplinary proceedings” and mentioned they’d admire “prompt attention to this sensitive matter.”
Martin’s workplace didn’t reply to a request for remark.
