President Donald Trump’s failed U.S. attorney nominee-turned-pardon attorney Ed Martin is trying to move his DC Bar disciplinary proceedings to federal court. It’s a move that another Trump-aligned lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, previously tried and failed. ....

The bar initiated formal disciplinary proceedings. In a filing specifying the charges last month, bar disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox alleged Martin “knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

Fox also accused Martin of misconduct in response to the bar’s investigation by engaging in unauthorized direct communication with a judge during a proceeding and engaging in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice.....

On Tuesday, he filed a notice in D.C. federal court, arguing that’s the forum in which the proceedings should move forward. In his federal filing, Martin cast the matter as stemming from his investigation of Fox and from Fox then retaliating by investigating Martin in turn.

“The case is being removed to this Court because Mr. Martin is entitled to a federal forum for the adjudication of his federal defenses,” his lawyers wrote in Tuesday’s federal court filing. In addition to his legal argument, the 98-page document contains exhibits of relevant letters and filings, including his correspondence with Georgetown and judges.

The bar will have an opportunity to respond in federal court. One of the cases it might cite in opposition to Martin’s removal bid is Clark’s failed effort. During the first Trump term, the former assistant attorney general sought to remove his bar proceedings that stemmed from his alleged conduct in the wake of the 2020 election.

Rejecting Clark’s federal removal bid in a 2023 ruling, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras wrote that Congress “has committed the regulation of federal government attorneys to the states and courts where they practice.” The Obama-appointee cited the Supreme Court’s observation of the tradition, “since the founding of the Republic,” that “the licensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States and the District of Columbia within their respective jurisdictions.”

A bipartisan federal appellate panel affirmed Clark’s removal rejection, focusing on procedural issues specific to his case. In any event, the logic underpinning the district judge’s ruling against Clark could lead to the same result against Martin. Even if Martin loses his removal attempt, that would not mean he would necessarily face any bar discipline in the end, only that the matter would not proceed in his chosen forum.