Ed
Martin’s
tenure
as
interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
District
of
Columbia
continues
to
provide
fodder
for
law
professors
seeking
future
professional
responsibility
hypos.
Using
the
office
letterhead
to
write
letters
to
X
accusing
government
workers
of
vague,
non-existent
crimes
and
writing
Chuck
Schumer
to
threaten
federal
criminal
action
over
pure
political
speech
raised
all
sorts
of
ethical
alarms,
but
Martin
dug
deep
and
came
up
with
an
ethical
lapse
even
more
stupid.
Martin—who
riled
up
the
January
6
crowd
with
election
conspiracy
chants—just
signed
off
on
dropping
charges
against
January
6
rioter
Joseph
Padilla.
Padilla’s
defense
lawyer?
ED
MARTIN.
To
the
disappointment
of
the
aforementioned
law
professors,
this
doesn’t
make
for
a
good
exam
question
because
no
one
is
actually
dumb
enough
to
do
this.
And
yet
here
we
are.
In
the
best
of
circumstances,
lawyers
can’t
even
represent
parties
against
former
clients
in
different
cases
for
some
amount
of
time.
Switching
sides
in
the
same
case
is
a
cartoonish
ethical
breach.
Reuters
points
out
that
“Missouri’s
own
state
bar
rules
—
where
Martin
is
licensed
—
require
written
consent
before
any
such
involvement.”
Presumably
Padilla
would’ve
been
all
too
excited
to
agree
to
having
his
defense
lawyer
take
over
the
prosecution.
But
it
doesn’t
even
appear
as
though
Martin
took
this
simple
step.
On
Wednesday,
Martin
sent
an
office-wide
seen
by
Reuters
in
which
he
said
he
had
“stopped
all
involvement”
in
the
cases
more
than
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
that
he
had
handled
them
pro
bono,
and
said
he
was
“under
the
impression
that
I
was
off
the
cases.”He
said
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
career
ethics
lawyer
asked
him
about
the
cases
last
week
and
complained
that
it
“immediately
leaked
to
the
media.”
This
leak,
he
said,
was
both
“personally
insulting”
and
professionally
“unacceptable.”
Yeah,
the
leak
isn’t
really
the
unacceptable
part.
It
doesn’t
matter
if
a
lawyer
thinks
they’re
“off
the
cases.”
They’re
privy
to
a
wealth
of
client
information.
And
while
Martin’s
role
as
U.S.
Attorney
is
letting
violent
criminals
go
if
they’re
on
Trump’s
side,
a
normal
prosecutor
isn’t
in
that
position.
In
the
abstract,
a
prosecutor
armed
with
a
defendant’s
confidential
defense
strategy
is
the
definition
of
a
conflict
of
interest
—
and
that’s
why
we
have
a
rule.
But
it’s
also
amazing
that
he
felt
the
need
to
add
that
it
was
pro
bono
as
though
that
makes
it
a
pretend
conflict
or
something.
And
note
that
he
says
the
ethics
lawyer
asked
him
about
the
case
last
week,
which
would
seem
to
confirm
the
Reuters
reporting
that
Martin
never
sought
advice
from
the
office
ethics
lawyer
in
his
office
before
thinking
he
could
drop
charges
against
his
old
client.
“I
find
it
alarming
that
a
lawyer
who
represented
a
client
in
private
practice
and
who
is
now
a
public
official
would
be
using
the
powers
of
the
new
office
for
the
benefit
of
his
former
private
client,”
said
New
York
University
law
professor
Stephen
Gillers.
Somehow
I
doubt
this
is
the
last
time
Gillers
is
going
to
find
something
alarming
about
the
new
DOJ.
Trump
put
a
conspiracy
theorist
who
represented
January
6
rioters
in
charge
of
the
office
that
prosecuted
January
6
rioters
and
he
fired
all
the
career
prosecutors
who
ran
those
cases
and
apparently
started
dropping
charges
against
his
own
clients.
Theoretically
the
Justice
Department’s
Office
of
Professional
Responsibility
could
hold
him
accountable
for
this.
But
they
won’t
because
there’s
nothing
left
over
there
but
a
pro-Trump
cleanup
crew.
Or
at
least
there
won’t
be
after
Elon
Musk
restaffs
the
whole
department.
Top
Trump
prosecutor
in
DC
dropped
federal
case
against
Capitol
rioter
he
represented
[Reuters]
Earlier:
Turning
Over
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
To
Conspiracy
Theorist
Working
Out
As
Expected
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.