Request for Disciplinary Investigation of Edward Robert Martin, Jr.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street N.W.
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, D.C. 20001

To the Disciplinary Counsel:

We are a group of attorneys dedicated to the protection of the rule of law in Washington, D.C. and beyond. Several of us previously served as Justice Department attorneys. We write today to urge you to investigate Edward R. Martin, Jr.’s violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and subject him to appropriate sanction. Mr. Martin is a member of the D.C. Bar (Member No. 481866) and has, since January of this year, served as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Martin’s position is one of enormous responsibility, and one whose work ranges from prosecuting local crime in the District to leading important national security investigations and prosecutions. He has used his brief time in office to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a federal prosecutor, announcing investigations against his political opponents, aiding defendants he previously represented, and communicating improperly with those he did not. These actions are not worthy of the Department of Justice, undermine the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection of law, and violate Mr. Martin’s professional obligations.

1. Investigations Against Political Opponents

Mr. Martin has made multiple public statements that suggested he was criminally investigating perceived political enemies of himself and the President, or would soon do so:

• In a series of letters to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Mr. Martin sought “clarification” on certain of the Senate leader’s statements that, according to Mr. Martin, “many found threatening.” Mr. Martin subsequently wrote that “Your cooperation is more important than ever to complete this inquiry before any action is taken. I remind you: no one is above the law.” [1]
  
• After Politico reported that the law firm Covington & Burling had given legal advice to former Special Counsel Jack Smith, Mr. Martin tweeted “Save your receipts, Smith and Covington. We’ll be in touch soon. #NoOneIsAboveTheLaw.” [2]
  
• In a tweet to Elon Musk promising to prosecute those who impeded the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency,” Mr. Martin promised to chase “to the end[s] of the Earth” those who have “broken the law or even acted simply unethically,” adding “Noone [sic] is above the law.” [3] Needless to say, Mr. Martin has no authority to prosecute those who commit no crime but who simply act, in his view, unethically.
  
• In a letter to the dean of Georgetown Law School, Mr. Martin wrote that “It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion]. This is unacceptable. I have begun an inquiry into this . . . .” [4]
  
• In a letter to Democratic Representative Eugene Vindman, Mr. Martin asked for “clarification” about the congressman’s personal finances. [5] Similarly, in a letter to Democratic Representative Robert Garcia, Mr. Martin asked for “clarification” about statements the congressman made in opposition to Elon Musk. [6]

Mr. Martin’s investigations into perceived opponents of this administration do not appear to be coincidental. In a since-deleted post on Twitter (X) copied below, Martin wrote that “[a]s President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities . . . that refuse to put America first.”

Mr. Martin’s client is not President Trump; it is the United States. His assertion otherwise adds further evidence that his announced investigations are politically motivated. As such, his actions violate D.C. Bar Rule of Professional Conduct (“Rule”) 3.8(a), which directs that “In exercising discretion to investigate or to prosecute,” a prosecutor may not “improperly favor or invidiously discriminate against any person.” In making the highly unusual decision to publicly announce these investigations, Mr. Martin also violates Rule 3.8(f), which directs that, with limited exceptions not applicable here, a prosecutor may not “make extrajudicial comments which serve to heighten condemnation of the accused.”

By publicly announcing these investigations, Mr. Martin also violates the Department of Justice’s Rule 1-7.400, which generally prohibits the disclosure of ongoing investigations. [7] To the extent that Mr. Martin failed to coordinate his statements with the Department’s Office of Public Affairs, his discussion of these matters of national importance also violate Rule 1-7.310. [8] As relevant here, by violating the Department’s own rules and disclosing information that he ought not, Mr. Martin has revealed the confidences of his client. This violates Rule 1.6, which directs that a lawyer may not “reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client.”

2. Improper Communications

Before and after his appointment as interim U.S. Attorney, Mr. Martin maintained a relationship with at least one defendant accused of attacking the Capitol: William Pope. Mr. Pope was charged with, among other things, civil disorder in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 231(a)(3) and obstruction of an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). In 2024, Mr. Martin praised Mr. Pope on Twitter as “one of the best men I have known.” [9] After Mr. Martin’s appointment, Mr. Pope filed a motion requesting various files. In that motion, Mr. Pope wrote that:

“[T]he administration of the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office has changed, and I have asked the new U.S. Attorney if the government is opposed to me keeping these files with my case notes. Per the protective order, ECF No. 26, it is up to the government to designate the sensitivity of materials, and I have been told the government no longer considers these specific items sensitive for me, specifically, to possess, so I am notifying the Court that I am fully in compliance with the previous Court orders on this matter.” [10]

When the government opposed the motion, Mr. Pope, who represented himself pro se, reiterated that he’d spoken with Mr. Martin, writing that “I would ask the Court to direct Mr. Martin to file a statement on whether he allowed me to keep all discovery files that are intertwined with my case notes.” [11] In yet another motion, Mr. Pope claimed that Mr. Martin personally suggested that he file a request for the government’s file on his case. According to Mr. Pope, Mr. Martin made this suggestion on January 20, 2025, before the case against him was dismissed. [12]

If Mr. Pope’s assertions are true, Mr. Martin potentially gave legal advice to a defendant his office was prosecuting at the time. This violates Rule 1.7(a) for the reasons discussed above, as well as Rule 1.7 Comment 20, which directs that “a lawyer might not be able to represent a client vigorously if the client’s adversary is a person with whom the lawyer has longstanding personal or social ties.”

3. Conclusion

Collectively, Mr. Martin’s actions threaten to undermine the integrity of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the legal profession in the District of Columbia. In word and in deed he has portrayed himself as an advocate for private and political interests of others, in violation of his oath of office and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reputation of our community depends on a prompt and thorough investigation into Mr. Martin’s violations of his professional obligations. I am available to assist in answering any questions you have as you pursue this matter.

Sincerely,

• Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel for Private Equity, Antitrust Division, and January 6 prosecutor
• Matt Beckwith, Former Assistant United States Attorney and January 6 prosecutor
• Sean Brennan, Former Assistant United States Attorney and January 6 prosecutor
• Barbara Comstock, Board Member, Society for the Rule of Law Institute; former Congresswoman representing Virginia’s 10th District
• George Conway, Board President, Society for the Rule of Law Institute
• Stuart Gerson, Board Treasurer, Society for the Rule of Law Institute; former Acting Attorney General of the United States
• Isia Jasiewicz, Former Assistant United States Attorney and January 6 prosecutor
• J. Michael Luttig, Former Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
• Gregg Nunziata, Executive Director, Society for the Rule of Law Institute; former Chief Nominations Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
• Mike Romano, Former Trial Attorney, Public Integrity Section, and January 6 prosecutor

[1] Letter from Gerald E. Connolly to Edward R. Martin, Jr. (February 25, 2025), available at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-02-25.%20GEC%20to%20USAO-Ed%20Martin%20-%20Communications.pdf.

[2] Edward R. Martin, Jr. (@USAEdMartin), Twitter (Feb. 14, 2025, 8:19 PM), https://x.com/USAEdMartin/status/1890571723965390922.

[3] Edward R. Martin, Jr. (@USAEdMartin), Twitter (Feb. 7, 2025, 11:27 AM), https://x.com/EagleEdMartin/status/1887901087983689761.

[4] Letter from Edward R. Martin, Jr. to William M. Trevor, Dean, Georgetown Law School (Feb. 17, 2025), available at https://www.ncronline.org/files/2025-03/3.7.24%20Ed%20Martin%20letter%20%20to%20Georgetown%20law.pdf.

[5] Steve Benen, Trump-appointed prosecutor pursues one of the president’s longtime targets, MSNBC (Mar. 12, 2025), https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-appointed-prosecutor-pursues-one-presidents-longtime-targets-rcna196017.

[6] Robert Garcia (@RobertGarcia), Twitter (Feb. 20, 2025, 2:55 PM), https://x.com/RobertGarcia/status/1892664373463683535.

[7] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 1-7.400.

[8] Id. at § 1-7.310.

[9] Ed Martin (@EagleEdMartin), Twitter (June 28, 2024 11:20 AM), https://x.com/EagleEdMartin/status/1806709147603247350.

[10] Motion to Compel, United States v. William Pope, 21-cr-128 (RC) (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025), ECF 391 (emphasis added).

[11] Reply to Motion to Compel, United States v. William Pope, 21-cr-128 (RC) (Feb. 19, 2025), ECF 395. 

[12] Reply to Motion for Sanctions, United States v. William Pope, 21-cr-128 (RC) (Mar. 6, 2025), ECF 397.