Hunter Biden attorney Christopher Clark is withdrawing from representing the president’s son in a Delaware probe, pointing to a continuing legal battle over a plea agreement in the tax case that dissolved before it could be approved by a judge.
Clark’s notice to the court indicates he could be a witness in coming challenges over the disintegration of the deal, which the Justice Department moved to withdraw minutes after Attorney General Merrick Garland elevated Delaware prosecutor David Weiss to serve as a special counsel in the matter.
“Based on recent developments, it appears that the negotiation and drafting of the plea agreement and diversion agreement will be contested, and Mr. Clark is a percipient witness to those issues,” Clark wrote.
He went on to cite Delaware professional conduct rules dictating that “a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.”
Clark has represented Biden throughout the five-year investigation and helped broker the plea deal.
More on Hunter Biden investigation:
- GOP releases transcript from FBI agent involved in Hunter Biden investigation
- Hunter Biden attorney confident president’s son won’t face additional charges by special counsel
- Hunter Biden attorney blames ‘right-wing media’ for false allegations
Biden was set to plead guilty to tax charges and settle a gun charge during a July 26 hearing in Delaware, but the deal fell apart during the hearing.
Abbe Lowell, another Biden attorney in the case, said Sunday that federal prosecutors “changed their decision on the fly” during the hearing — when such plea agreements are typically ironed out by both sides before appearing before a judge.
He doubled down on those comments in a court brief later that day, maintaining that federal prosecutors opted to “renege on the previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement.”
Prosecutors’ formal move to withdraw the deal indicated they plan to seek charges outside of Delaware, instead addressing the charges in either Washington, D.C., or California.
The listed locations nod to testimony from two IRS whistleblowers who complained about Weiss’s handling of the case and suggested there may be stronger evidence in the two other jurisdictions.