DOJ’s pardon attorney Ed Martin hit with ethics charges over Georgetown University funding threat

(WASHINGTON) — The Washington, D.C., Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin over allegations he improperly threatened to withhold federal funding from Georgetown University’s law school and then attempted to sideline an investigation into his conduct while serving as D.C.’s top federal prosecutor last year, according to a disciplinary petition.

In a two-count petition filed last week with the D.C. Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility, attorneys with the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Martin engaged in “conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice,” including by allegedly demanding that a judge suspend the attorney investigating his actions.

“Mr. 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,” the disciplinary petition said.

According to the complaint, Martin – while serving as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia last year – threatened to withhold federal funding and freeze hirings from Georgetown University Law Center over allegations that the school was promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures.

After sending letters to the dean of Georgetown’s law school about DEI programming last year, Martin allegedly told the school’s interim president that their answers about DEI would “bear directly on Georgetown University’s status as a 501(c) nonprofit and its receipt of nearly $1 billion of federal tax money.”

“He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students,” the petition said. “His demand did not provide Georgetown Law fair notice of what is allegedly prohibited because he did not define ‘DEI,’ cited no authority for his demand, and did not describe what actions, and what timetable, might satisfy his demand.”

After a retired judge reported Martin’s conduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Martin allegedly attempted to sideline the investigation by sending a letter directly to the chief judge and senior judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals, according to the complaint.

“In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward.’ He copied the White House Counsel ‘for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed,'” the complaint said.

The complaint alleges that Martin – after being told to not directly communicate with judges – sent another letter to the chief judge demanding that the court suspend the investigator probing his conduct and dismiss the case against him.

With the charges filed, D.C.’s Board on Professional Responsibility is expected to refer the petition to a hearing committee.

Martin’s interactions are just one among a series of controversies from his brief tenure as Washington’s top federal prosecutor from January to May 2025 before his temporary appointment to the position lapsed and he failed to gain enough support from Republican senators for his confirmation to the post.

He was then appointed to four separate senior positions in the Justice Department before sources said he was effectively demoted earlier this year after multiple other incidents where he faced admonishment from leadership for his conduct.

Martin remains in his role as pardon attorney, according to the DOJ, and has used the post to float controversial clemency recommendations to the White House while frequently citing the phrase, “No MAGA left behind.”

The ethics complaint was filed the same week that the DOJ proposed new regulations that would seek to give Attorney General Pam Bondi the authority to suspend state bar investigations, arguing the policy is necessary to combat the “weaponization” of the complaint process. It’s not immediately clear what legal basis the department would have to intervene in state-level proceedings, however.

Martin and a DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.

Georgetown Law’s then-Dean William Treanor previously responded to Martin’s letter, affirming the school’s speech protections under the First Amendment. He accused Martin of mounting “an attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.