D.C. disciplinary counsel files ethics charges against DOJ pardon attorney Ed Martin over Georgetown letter

Ethics case opened over Georgetown Law letter and subsequent communications with the D.C. Court of Appeals

Washington’s attorney-discipline system has filed formal ethics charges against Justice Department pardon attorney Edward R. “Ed” Martin Jr., alleging he misused government authority in a dispute with Georgetown University Law Center and later sought to influence the disciplinary process through improper communications.

The allegations, contained in a petition submitted to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ Board on Professional Responsibility and made public Tuesday, stem from actions Martin took in early 2025 while serving as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin is a member of the D.C. Bar and currently leads the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.

What the disciplinary petition alleges

The petition describes a February 17, 2025 letter Martin sent to Georgetown Law asserting that a whistleblower had raised concerns that the school was “teaching” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The petition says that, before receiving a response from the university, Martin directed that his office would not consider for fellowship positions, summer internships, or employment any applicant who was a student at, or affiliated with, a law school or university that “continues to teach and utilize DEI.”

The disciplinary counsel alleges this amounted to coercion by a government official aimed at suppressing a disfavored viewpoint, and that it conditioned a governmental benefit—employment opportunities for students—on Georgetown Law changing what and how it teaches. The filing further alleges Martin suggested that Georgetown’s nonprofit status and federal funding could be at risk.

• Core claim: The petition argues Martin acted in his official capacity to pressure a private educational institution regarding curriculum and viewpoint.

• Constitutional framing: The petition asserts the conduct implicated First and Fifth Amendment concerns, as described in the disciplinary filing.

• Additional allegations: The petition also accuses Martin of attempting to interfere with the disciplinary investigation.

Georgetown’s response and the separate ex parte allegations

Georgetown Law’s then-dean, William Treanor, responded by rejecting Martin’s demands and characterizing the letter as an attack on the school’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.

The disciplinary filing also focuses on Martin’s communications after the misconduct complaint was initiated. It alleges that, when asked to respond to the initial complaint received in April 2025, Martin refused and instead sent a letter directly to the chief judge and senior judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The petition says Martin sought a private, face-to-face meeting about the matter, and copied the White House counsel’s office.

The filing alleges the chief judge informed Martin that such contact was improper and that he must communicate through standard channels, but that Martin continued to contact the judge and asked that the disciplinary counsel be suspended and the case dismissed. These actions form the basis of separate allegations involving improper ex parte communications and conduct that interferes with the administration of justice.

The disciplinary petition alleges Martin used his official position to pressure a law school over curriculum and later sought to influence the disciplinary process through direct communications with judges.

Procedural next steps and the department’s response

Under the District’s attorney-discipline process, the matter proceeds through adjudicative steps that can include review by a hearing committee, recommendations to the Board on Professional Responsibility, and final action by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Potential sanctions can range from public censure to disbarment, depending on findings and recommended discipline.

The Justice Department, in a statement, criticized the disciplinary action as partisan. Martin did not publicly respond to requests for comment reported in connection with the filing.