Outgoing interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin disclosed he is under investigation by a D.C. ethics panel in a goodbye email to staff as he prepares to take on a new role at the Justice Department.
Martin stepped down this week after his nomination for the post hit a roadblock with some GOP senators. He has since been tapped by President Trump to lead the new Weaponization Working Group at DOJ.
Now slated by Trump for a more far-reaching role at Justice, Martin alerted staff that he is under investigation by D.C.’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) which reviews complaints filed against attorneys in the city.
Martin appeared to attach a complaint before the board and referenced the office’s leader, Hamilton “Phil” Fox.
“I am taking Mr. Fox head on. His conduct is personally insulting and professionally unacceptable,” Martin wrote in an email reviewed by The Hill.
He also blasted the office as well as judges, writing, “It is an outrage how they treat us and I will continue the fight against the weaponization of our law licenses against us.”
Martin was facing at least two requests for ethics investigations made to ODC.
A letter from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee laid out a series of actions from Martin, noting that he remained the attorney of record for one of the Jan. 6 defendants he represented in private practice while dismissing his case as the interim U.S. Attorney.
“By not recusing himself from this matter, Mr. Martin created an impermissible conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by using his new government office to favor his client, whom he was defending from the very charges he sought to dismiss,” Durbin wrote.
The letter also noted Martin’s tweets to Elon Musk, pledging to take action against those who “even acted simply unethically” in dealings with the Department of Government Efficiency efforts.
A request from the group Demand Progress made similar arguments.
It’s not clear which of the requests Martin was referencing. Durbin’s office did not respond to request for comment.
While Demand Progress received a response from Fox’s office asking for more information, the group indicated their request has not yet been formally docketed – a contrast to the docketed case number referenced by Martin.
