Trump ally Ed Martin could lose Missouri law license for misconduct in DC | Opinion
Ed Martin, the firebrand Republican from Missouri and former interim U.S. attorney for Washington D.C., is in hot water with the D.C. Bar. He faces serious ethics charges for his behavior in that federal office.
If “Eagle Ed” Martin, now the Department of Justice’s pardon attorney, is found to have committed professional misconduct in a previous federal position, his ability to practice law in D.C. and elsewhere — including in Missouri — could be in serious jeopardy.
In a two-count disciplinary petition filed recently with the D.C. Court of Appeals’ Board on Professional Responsibility, Martin is alleged to have engaged in “conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.”
In the petition, D.C. Bar attorneys accused Martin of violating the First and Fifth amendments by threatening to withhold federal funding from Georgetown University Law Center. He is also accused in the filing of professional misconduct by contacting the chief judge and the senior judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals to avoid filing a formal response with the disciplinary office there about the letter he sent to the law school.
This week, I confirmed with the Missouri Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Enrollment that Martin’s law license is currently in good standing. But that all could change depending on what happens with the D.C. case.
According to the Missouri Supreme Court’s rule on reciprocal discipline for misconduct, a lawyer licensed in the state who is disciplined in another jurisdiction must report that ruling to the chief disciplinary counsel within 10 days.
Any lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct in another jurisdiction must “show cause why said adjudication should not be conclusive of said misconduct for the purpose of discipline by this Court,” the court’s rule reads.
Knowing that, Martin’s troubles in D.C are worth paying attention to here.
Legal counsel for Jan. 6 rioters
Allegations against Martin, the former chair of the Missouri GOP and one-time candidate for Missouri attorney general, still must be proven in the proper venue. But it did not escape me that the office of disciplinary counsel in D.C. is the same oversight agency that permanently stripped former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani of his law license for his role in the attempted subversion of the 2020 presidential election.
Could Martin be next?
Martin is no stranger to controversy — he’s a 2020 election denier and a key player in the “stop the steal” movement organized to prevent a peaceful transfer of presidential power in January 2021. He also provided legal counsel for Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection defendants. As interim U.S. attorney, Martin filed a motion to withdraw charges against one of his own clients involved in the storming of the U.S. Capitol that day.
He was also outed by The Washington Post for offering praise to a Nazi sympathizer and appearing on Russian-backed media outlets more than 150 times.
But it was his actions as the interim U.S. attorney last year that led to the ethics complaint being filed against him.
Threat over diversity, equity, inclusion policies?
The complaint alleged Martin threatened to withhold federal funds and not hire anyone from Georgetown’s law school because Martin believed the school was promoting diversity, equity and inclusion policies, according to the filing.
When he took office for his second term in Jan. 2025, President Donald Trump appointed Martin interim U.S. attorney in D.C. At the time, the selection was considered dubious because of Martin’s lack of experience as a federal judge, and that he had never tried a case as a prosecutor. When it became obvious Martin would not gain confirmation from the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate, Trump withdrew the nomination.
In his brief stint before confirmation as top attorney in Washington, Martin wasted little time making headlines for all the wrong reasons, including the scathing and threatening letter he sent to Georgetown.
If the Court of Appeals finds Martin violated his oath of office and acted inappropriately in this case, his law license should face intense scrutiny wherever he practices law, including here in Missouri.
This story was originally published March 12, 2026 at 5:02 AM.
