Trump Pardon Attorney Claims He's Above the Law Because He Works for the President

Ed Martin, the MAGA loyalist Trump installed as his pardon attorney, is now claiming that professional ethics rules are unconstitutional when applied to him. His reasoning? Because he works for the president, any attempt to hold him accountable for attorney misconduct amounts to an attack on presidential authority itself.

The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel formally charged Martin with ethics violations last month over threatening letters he sent to Georgetown University's law school while serving as acting U.S. attorney in early 2025. Martin, who has been licensed to practice law in D.C. since 2003, could face sanctions or disbarment.

Rather than address the substance of the charges, Martin filed a motion this week arguing that the entire ethics case violates the Constitution. His central claim: The president and federal attorneys are essentially the same entity, so disciplining DOJ lawyers interferes with presidential power under Article II.

"The President's exercise of his authorities under the Take Care Clause through his U.S. Attorneys cannot be interfered with or hobbled by harassing and pretextual enforcement actions," Martin argued in his filing.

He went further, asserting that "every executive branch attorney is bound by the President's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation." In Martin's view, working for the DOJ apparently grants immunity from the professional standards that govern every other lawyer in America.

A Botched Investigation of His Own Investigators

Martin's defense gets even stranger. He claims that Hamilton Fox, the attorney who heads the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, cannot investigate him because Martin had already opened his own probe into Fox while serving as acting U.S. attorney.

As evidence, Martin submitted a letter he allegedly sent Fox in February 2025 demanding information about how the D.C. Bar handles ethics investigations and disciplinary actions. The letter appeared aimed at previous ethics proceedings against Jeffrey Clark, the former DOJ attorney who helped Trump attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

There was one glaring problem: Martin sent his letter to the wrong organization. The D.C. Bar and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel are completely separate entities. While the bar sets ethical standards, it has zero authority to investigate, prosecute, or discipline attorneys. That's Fox's job.

"You appear to be under the impression that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is a part of the D.C. Bar. We are not; we are an arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals," Fox replied after eventually receiving Martin's misdirected letter.

Martin's own defense attorney appears to have made the same error, referring in the new filing to Fox's title as the "D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility Bar Disciplinary Counsel." The Board on Professional Responsibility is yet another separate entity.

Despite bungling basic facts about the organizations involved, Martin insists Fox is now prejudiced against him and demands the case be moved to federal court, where he can raise constitutional defenses.

Forty Defenses and Counting

Martin's formal response to the ethics charges raised 40 separate defenses, a scattershot approach ranging from jurisdictional arguments to claims of attorney-client privilege and selective prosecution.

Among the more creative defenses: Martin alleged the misconduct charges violate D.C.'s Human Rights Act by discriminating against him based on his "political affiliation and beliefs."

Trump withdrew Martin's nomination to serve as D.C.'s permanent U.S. attorney last May after key Republican senators said they would not confirm him. Senators cited his defense of January 6 rioters and erratic behavior while serving in an acting capacity.

Part of a Broader DOJ Strategy

Martin's arguments, while extreme, align with the Trump DOJ's new confrontational approach to state bar associations. Last month, the department proposed rule changes that would effectively allow it to block state ethics investigations of DOJ attorneys indefinitely.

Under the proposed rules, current and former DOJ lawyers would be barred from cooperating with state bar ethics probes if the DOJ decides to conduct its own internal review first. In theory, the department could simply open -- and never complete -- its own investigation, permanently shielding its attorneys from accountability.

Thousands of state and local bar associations, state attorneys general, former DOJ prosecutors, and members of the public have denounced the proposed changes.

The National Organization of Bar Counsel called the changes "unprecedented, unnecessary, inappropriate" and said they lack both "congressional and constitutional authority." The organization warned the rules "do nothing to support the public protection mission of regulating and, when necessary, disciplining lawyers."

Martin's case will test whether Trump-era DOJ attorneys can successfully claim immunity from the professional standards that govern the legal profession. If his arguments prevail, it would create a two-tiered system: one set of ethics rules for ordinary lawyers, and none for those who work for the president.