Despite the fact President Donald Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of all the January 6 defendants on his first day in office last month, The 65 Project, which files bar complaints against conservative election attorneys, filed another complaint on Thursday against one of the J6 attorneys. The organization – circuitously funded by Leftist dark-money groups – submitted the complaint to the D.C. Bar, alleging a small technical violation by Edward Martin, a previous chair of the Missouri Republican Party who was appointed by Trump last month to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The legal activists claimed in their court filings that Martin failed to file a notice with the court stating that he was no longer counsel of record for two of the defendants after being appointed to the position. This is a small routine filing that attorneys often fail to file in a timely manner, and rarely results in bar discipline. Martin has since filed the routine paperwork with the court, which explained that he hadn’t even been representing the defendants in their post-conviction proceedings, they had new counsel.
As acting U.S. Attorney for D.C., Martin’s name was placed on the pleadings last month dismissing the J6 prosecutions.
The 65 Project claimed that Martin filed a pleading on behalf of the United States in defendant Joseph Padilla’s case without filing the formality indicating he was no longer representing Padilla as his personal defense attorney. They accused Martin of the same failure with J6 defendant Timothy Hale-Cusinelli, and criticized Martin for hosting a fundraiser for Hale-Cusinelli where he referred to him as an “extraordinary man, an extraordinary leader now of those who have survived January 6.”
The organization said Martin (pictured above) violated three of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-1.7 states that attorneys must recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest due to taking two adverse positions in a matter. However, if the clients they represent with the adverse positions consent to the representation, there is no violation of the rule. However, The 65 Project did not provide any evidence that the DOJ or Martin’s former J6 clients did not consent.
Rule 4-1.9 prohibits attorneys from representing a client whose interests are adverse to a former client unless the former client consents. Again, The 65 Project didn’t offer any evidence that Martin hadn’t gotten permission from Padilla or Hale-Cusinelli.
Rule 4-1.11 prohibits attorneys from participating in a legal matter where the attorney previously participated in the legal matter as a government attorney. However, the rule doesn’t prohibit the reverse, where a private attorney then becomes a government attorney in the same matter. Additionally, there are various exceptions to the rule.
The 65 Project’s complaint admits that Martin said he was no longer counsel for the defendants.
The mainstream media attacked Martin after his appointment. KETK ran an Associated Press article last month, “New top prosecutor for DC advocated for Jan. 6 rioters and echoed Trump’s false 2020 election claims.”
“For years, conservative activist Ed Martin has promoted Donald Trump’s false claims about a stolen 2020 election, railed against the prosecution of the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol and represented some of them in court,” the lengthy piece begins.
The AP said Martin watched the capitol building security camera videos of J6 and concluded on a blog post, “And, if you watch it for a while you realize that 99.9% of it is normal people doing normal things: sauntering around and through the Capitol grounds and building.”
Martin spoke at a “Stop the Steal” event on J6 and served on the board of a group called the Patriot Freedom Project, which has raised money to support Jan. 6 defendants and their families, the AP reported. He represented at least three of the J6ers, including a member of the Proud Boys.
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project which defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law, said on X that Martin is a “bold and fearless” leader who will “clean house” at the office, which Davis described as “an epicenter of the lawfare and political persecution.” He added in a follow-up post, “You’re going to love President Trump’s new DC U.S. attorney. (Unless you’re a criminal.)”
In order to become the permanent U.S. Attorney for D.C., Martin would need to go through Senate confirmation.
When Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes hired progressive attorney Dan Barr, it was widely believed that Barr failed to resign from the Democratic firm Perkins Coie, where he worked with progressive attorney Marc Elias, until after he started in the position, which would be a conflict of interest. He was not disciplined by the State Bar of Arizona.
The D.C. Bar has come under fire for aggressively pursuing discipline against Trump’s former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark and Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani. While a disciplinary panel has recommended suspending Clark’s law license for two years due to his efforts advising Trump on 2020 election irregularities, D.C. Bar prosecutor Hamilton Fox is still pursuing disbarment. Giuliani was disbarred last year.
But now, some state bars have started backing off on disciplining conservative election attorneys. After the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that attorneys should not be disciplined for bringing election-related lawsuits, the State Bar of Arizona’s disciplinary judge dismissed charges against two of Kari Lake’s election attorneys, citing that decision.
The 65 Project is a legal activism campaign launched in 2021 that has drawn significant attention for its efforts to target lawyers who supported President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election results. The group, which describes itself as bipartisan and focused on “defending democracy and the rule of law,” has filed nearly 100 ethics complaints against Trump-aligned attorneys, seeking to disbar or discredit them for filing what it calls “fraudulent and malicious lawsuits.”
Led by managing director Michael Teter and advised by Democratic consultant David Brock, the project was launched by Melissa Moss, a Democratic consultant with ties to the Clinton administration. The project, operating under the auspices of Law Works – which notably maintains no public website or financial transparency – has secured funding from the Democracy Fund, known for its focus on public policy, and operates as a fiscal project of the Franklin Education Forum, which seeks to bolster progressive causes through education and support.
Critics, including groups like America First Legal, argue that the campaign’s tactics of running advertisements warning lawyers against representing Trump, constitute “lawfare” aimed at chilling legal representation. Texas U.S. Rep Lance Gooden (R-TX-05) and attorney Alan Dershowitz have likened its actions to McCarthyism, arguing that it risks undermining the principle that everyone is entitled to legal representation.
Detractors also note the organization has not targeted Democratic-aligned attorneys who have challenged election results in the past.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at the Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Ed Martin” by Ed Martin.
