.png)
1 hour ago
2
“How do you solve a problem like Alito?” That’s the now-deleted Tweet D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler posted in August 2023. This was after multiple justices—including Justice Samuel Alito—faced death threats.
But why was he posting this in the first place?
For those unfamiliar, the D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel’s self-professed mission is to “(1) protect the public and the courts; (2) maintain the integrity of the legal profession; and (3) deter attorneys from engaging in misconduct.”
The disciplinary counsel, and his assistants, often do this by bringing charges, prosecuting alleged violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct—the ethical rules that govern how lawyers are supposed to behave.
If the D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel’s prosecution is successful, the lawyer can receive punishment ranging from a mild reprimand to a severe sanction such as disbarment—the loss of the ability to practice law in the District of Columbia.
Those who work in the office of the D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel wield great power.
That’s why Metzler’s mocking of Alito is so troubling, as are his other inflammatory statements. They call into question the fairness and impartiality of the entire D.C. Bar disciplinary process.
After all, Metzler made inflammatory statements such as it’s “embarrassing for Christianity” that Alito—himself a devout Catholic—had been invited to deliver the commencement address at a Catholic college.
And he said that Alito is a “Natural Born Fool.”
But lest you worry that his ire is reserved solely for Alito, he also criticized Justice Clarence Thomas.
And he flippantly affirmed criticisms of Justice Neil Gorsuch too.
But really, it’s anyone with a conservative—or even just non-extreme-far-left—outlook on life or law that he seems to take issue with.
For example, he said that “Elon Musk has achieved his ambition to become a real life Bond Villain.”
And he said that “Leonard Leo,” the noted conservative activist and philanthropist, “is Grindr [a gay dating app] for billionaires and conservative Justices.”
But he saved special criticism for President Donald Trump, his arguments after the 2020 election, and those who helped him make those arguments.
He compared Trump to Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
And he posted, “Trump so jealous of Russia’s coup rn [right now].”
At some point in 2025, he deleted his Twitter/X account and shifted his incessant posting to the notoriously left-leaning Bluesky platform.
There he continued his criticisms of Trump, repeatedly referring to him as an insurrectionist.
And Metzler criticized Trump’s policies, such as deploying the National Guard to the streets of Washington, D.C.
He also criticized FBI Director Kash Patel.
And opined that James Comey should not have been indicted.
On top of all of that, he reposted a thread about how the U.S. is supposedly sliding toward authoritarianism with his own commentary that it’s a “cogent and sober explanation of why we are so cooked.”
And throughout, he sprinkled posts mocking Christianity.
Here’s Metzler’s problem: It’s hard for him to credibly argue that all these posts are First Amendment-protected personal commentary detached from his job as a D.C. Bar senior assistant disciplinary counsel—a leadership position within the office.
First, look at the timestamps on many of his posts, they occurred during normal business hours. (Does this constitute fraud, waste, or abuse for him to while away his day like this on social media? Is posting on X or Bluesky part of his official job description? If not, why was Metzler spending his time like this?)
If it is part of his job to post on social media, that’s an even bigger problem. And regardless, a casual observer could be forgiven for not separating out his personal from professional posting. After all, during the course of his posting, he mentions his role as an ethics official and his role in enforcing ethics rules for lawyers. And he even intimates how he views certain behavior that might come before him.
Moreover, he posted job openings within the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel on this same website, right alongside his political commentary.
But here’s where things get really problematic and where Metzler himself arguably violated ethics rules and disqualified himself (and maybe the entire office) from pursuing certain charges against certain individuals, particularly those associated with President Trump or the Trump administration.
First, he approvingly reposted a statement from Matthew Stiegler, who works for controversial Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, where Stiegler said that “There’s a point where I think all of us, senators to nobodies, have a decision to make. If we use whatever voice we have, whatever power we have, to oppose what’s happening now, it might damage our future. Might land us in a prison. We accept that risk, or we don’t. I submit that point is here.”
This post alone calls into question whether Metzler will fairly and impartially pursue bar disciplinary sanctions or whether he will use “whatever power [he has]” to punish those with whom he disagrees politically—particularly those associated with Trump.
Consider this: Stiegler posted—and Metzler reposted—that statement on June 12, 2025. A little over a month later, the D.C. Bar Board on Professional Responsibility, at the behest of Metzler and those in his office, recommended that Jeff Clark be disbarred for the advice he gave President Trump and the actions he took after the 2020 election while serving as a U.S. Justice Department lawyer—an unprecedented action.
And Metzler has continued to represent the D.C. Bar to uphold that sanction throughout the ensuing appeals and litigation.
While those proceedings were pending and documents were still being actively filed in Clark’s case, Metzler posted, “What’s the word for lying about what you’re doing as you do it? Like ‘I’m protecting the Constitution’ while in fact violating the Constitution? I think people say gaslighting but I don’t think that’s quite it. Whatever it is I hate it so much.”
Was that commentary on the ongoing litigation and disbarment proceedings against Clark? A reasonable observer could conclude that it was.
The D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel holds itself out as “the chief prosecutor for attorney disciplinary matters involving active or inactive attorneys who are members of the D.C. Bar.”
While not a perfect analogy, the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct—the rules Metzler is charged with enforcing—lay out the “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor” in Rule 3.8.
Among other considerations, the Rule makes clear that prosecutors shall not “In exercising discretion to investigate or prosecute, improperly favor or invidiously discriminate against any person” and says that “except for statements which are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and which serve a legitimate law enforcement purposes, make extrajudicial comments which serve to heighten condemnation of the accused.”
On those metrics, Metzler falls far short. And he has done nothing to quell the questions that are already swirling around the D.C. Bar’s apparent bias in pursuing disciplinary proceedings against lawyers with whom it disagrees politically.
Any lawyer—anyone who values due process and impartiality—should be troubled by Metzler’s social media posts, which call into question his ability to fairly and impartially discharge his D.C. Bar prosecutorial duties.
The bar disciplinary process must be fair—and it must appear fair too. Both are now in question in our nation’s capital.
English (US)