A former interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., who now serves as a pardon attorney in the Trump administration, is facing an ethics investigation over alleged misconduct involving a prominent law school and the handling of a disciplinary complaint. The case has drawn attention to claims that government authority may have been used to pressure a university over its academic policies.
The disciplinary petition alleges that the official, Ed Martin, may have violated constitutional principles and professional conduct rules while acting in his official capacity.
Ethics Complaint Filed Against Ed Martin
The D.C. Bar’s disciplinary counsel has filed an eight-page petition accusing Ed Martin of violating professional ethics rules.
The complaint was submitted by Hamilton Fox, the disciplinary counsel for the D.C. Bar, to the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility.
According to the filing, the investigation began after a retired California judge submitted a complaint regarding Martin’s actions earlier in the year.
The complaint focuses mainly on a letter Martin sent to Georgetown University Law Center in February while serving as interim U.S. attorney.
Letter Sent to Georgetown Law Over DEI Concerns
The filing states that Martin contacted Georgetown University Law Center and its dean, William Treanor, regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
According to the disciplinary petition, Martin claimed that a whistleblower informed him the law school was teaching and promoting DEI programs.
The letter reportedly asked the university whether it had removed DEI from its curriculum. If such programs were still present, Martin questioned whether the school planned to eliminate them.
However, the complaint notes that Martin did not clearly define what he meant by DEI or identify specific courses or policies he believed were problematic.
Alleged Threats to Georgetown Students’ Job Opportunities
One of the central issues in the ethics complaint involves a warning Martin allegedly made to the university.
According to the documents, Martin informed Georgetown that students affiliated with the law school would not be considered for certain job opportunities in the U.S. Attorney’s Office until the issue was resolved.
The letter reportedly stated that Georgetown students would not be eligible for:
- Fellowship programs
- Summer internships
- Employment opportunities in the office
Disciplinary counsel argues that this warning could be interpreted as an attempt to punish the university for its academic viewpoints.
Dean Responded With Constitutional Concerns
Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor responded to Martin’s letter by raising constitutional concerns.
Treanor reportedly argued that the inquiry violated the First Amendment and interfered with the university’s academic mission.
He also described the letter as an attack on the institution’s role as a Jesuit and Catholic university.
According to the disciplinary filing, Martin later responded by raising questions about Georgetown’s nonprofit status and its receipt of federal funding.
Ethics Petition Claims Constitutional Violations
The disciplinary petition claims Martin’s actions may have violated the U.S. Constitution.
The filing states that Martin “knew or should have known” that his conduct could violate the First and Fifth Amendments.
According to the complaint, Martin used his position as a government official to pressure a university over viewpoints related to DEI programs.
The disciplinary counsel argues that this could represent an improper use of government authority.
Additional Allegations About Bar Investigation Interference
The petition also includes allegations related to Martin’s response to the ethics investigation itself.
According to the filing, Martin contacted judges from the D.C. Court of Appeals directly to complain about the investigation.
Disciplinary counsel alleges that Martin requested a face-to-face meeting with the judges and copied the White House counsel on his communication.
Court officials reportedly informed Martin that such direct communication was not permitted and that concerns should be raised through standard procedures.
Missed Deadline and Further Complaints
The documents also claim Martin missed a deadline to formally respond to the ethics complaint.
Disciplinary counsel later filed a motion to compel a response from him.
The petition further alleges that Martin again contacted the court’s chief judge directly and asked for the disciplinary counsel to be suspended and for the case against him to be dismissed.
Investigators say these communications may represent improper attempts to influence the disciplinary process.
Trump Administration Defends Martin
Officials connected to the Trump administration have strongly criticized the investigation.
The Department of Justice reportedly described the D.C. Bar as a partisan organization targeting attorneys connected to the Trump administration.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also criticized the bar association publicly, calling it politically biased.
Blanche said the organization was a “Democrat-run political organization” and suggested the investigation was politically motivated.
DOJ Considering Changes to Bar Investigation Authority
The controversy comes as the Justice Department considers changes to how disciplinary investigations involving federal attorneys are handled.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice has proposed a rule that would allow the attorney general to take control of state bar investigations involving current or former DOJ attorneys.
Supporters say the change would protect federal lawyers from politically motivated complaints, while critics argue it could weaken independent oversight.
