Department of Justice: Information on the Office of Professional
Responsibility's Operations (Letter Report, 08/14/2000, GAO/GGD-00-187).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Office of
Professional Responsibility's (OPR) operations, focusing on: (1) how OPR
conducts its inquiries into allegations of misconduct by Department of
Justice attorneys; (2) to what extent OPR's workload, as well as budget,
have changed; (3) the possible range of disciplinary actions and
procedures if employee misconduct is found; (4) OPR's oversight
relationship with similar offices in other Justice components; (5) the
degree to which OPR has implemented GAO's prior recommendations; and (6)
how OPR is monitoring and implementing the Hyde Attorneys Fees Amendment
and the Citizens Protection Act.
GAO noted that: (1) with regard to how OPR conducts its inquiries of
allegations of misconduct involving Justice attorneys, OPR is to
initially notify the attorney of the allegations and request a written
response to the charges; (2) on the basis of the response, OPR is then
to determine whether further investigation is necessary; (3) if further
investigation is determined to be warranted, OPR is to interview
relevant individuals and analyze necessary documentation; (4) after
completing its investigation, OPR is to prepare a report of its findings
and, if appropriate, include a recommended range of possible
disciplinary actions; (5) if the matter appears to involve a violation
of a criminal law, OPR is to refer the matter to Justice's Public
Integrity Section or the appropriate U.S. Attorney's office; (6) with
respect to OPR's workload, the number of authorized staff has remained
fairly level at 33 to 35 over the past 4 fiscal years; (7) the
authorized funding levels have risen from $3.8 million in 1997 to $4.2
million in 2000; (8) administrative disciplinary actions that can be
taken when professional misconduct is found can range from an oral
reprimand to termination of employment, depending on the circumstances
of each case; (9) it is the responsibility of the head of the office
where the attorney works to impose final disciplinary action and report
to OPR on what action was taken; (10) Justice OPR is also responsible
for overseeing the operations of two other Justice components, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI); (11) these agencies have established their own OPRs, which are
tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct by employees in
their respective agencies; (12) Justice OPR relies on FBI and DEA
monthly status reports which show the number of matters opened and the
disposition of closed matters, to stay abreast of their activities; (13)
in response to recommendations in GAO's 1992 report, OPR has established
written investigative procedures; (14) in response to the findings
contained in GAO's 1994 report, the Attorney General issued an order
clarifying the jurisdiction for both OPR and Justice's Office of the
Inspector General; (15) with respect to Hyde Amendment cases, nine
matters have been in various stages of investigation or inquiry and one
had been closed by OPR on June 11, 2000; and (16) regarding implementing
the Citizens Protection Act, OPR evaluates the subjects' conduct by
applying the most stringent rules of either the state bar association
where the subject is licensed or the state where the case took place.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-00-187
TITLE: Department of Justice: Information on the Office of
Professional Responsibility's Operations
DATE: 08/14/2000
SUBJECT: Investigations into federal agencies
Personnel management
Ethical conduct
Federal employees
Crimes or offenses
Law enforcement agencies
Malfeasance
Lawyers
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/GGD-00-187
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Information on the Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
August 2000 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187
United States General Accounting Office General Government Division
Washington, D. C. 20548
Page 1 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
B- 284828 August 14, 2000 The Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary House of Representatives
The Honorable William D. Delahunt House of Representatives
The Department of Justice (Justice) states that its attorneys should be held
to the highest ethical standards. Members of Congress, judges, and the media
have voiced concerns about the professionalism and conduct of certain
Justice attorneys over the past several years. Concerns have also been
raised about the process for holding Justice's attorneys accountable to
ethical standards. Because of these concerns, you asked us to review
Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is responsible
for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Justice attorneys
relating to the exercise of the attorneys' authority to investigate,
litigate, or provide legal advice. This report responds to your request that
we determine:
� how OPR conducts its inquiries into allegations of misconduct by Justice
attorneys;
� to what extent OPR's workload, as well as budget, have changed;
� the possible range of disciplinary actions and procedures if employee
misconduct is found;
� OPR's oversight relationship with similar offices in other Justice
components; and
� the degree to which OPR has implemented our prior recommendations. In
addition, you asked us to provide information on how OPR is monitoring and
implementing what are commonly referred to as the Hyde Attorneys Fees
Amendment 1 and the Citizens Protection Act. 2 The Hyde Amendment, in
general, allows prevailing parties in criminal cases to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees where the court finds the position of the United States to
be frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith. Under the Citizens
1 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 105- 119, 111 Stat. 2519,
section 617. 2 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105- 277, Div. A, 112 Stat. 2681- 118,
section 801.
B- 284828 Page 2 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
Protection Act, in general, Justice's litigators are subject to certain
ethical standards of the state where they conduct their activities.
With regard to how OPR conducts its inquiries of allegations of misconduct
involving Justice attorneys, OPR normally is to initially notify the
attorney of the allegations and request a written response to the charges.
On the basis of the response, OPR is then to determine whether further
investigation is necessary or if the matter can be closed. If further
investigation is determined to be warranted, OPR is to interview relevant
individuals and analyze necessary documentation. After completing its
investigation, OPR is to prepare a report of its findings and, if
appropriate, include a recommended range of possible disciplinary actions.
If the matter appears to involve a violation of a criminal law, OPR is to
refer the matter to Justice's Public Integrity Section or the appropriate U.
S. Attorney's office. On the basis of our limited review of case files and
discussions with OPR officials, it appears that OPR is following its
procedures and internal controls for conducting inquiries into allegations
of misconduct by Justice attorneys.
With respect to OPR's workload, the number of authorized staff has remained
fairly level at 33 to 35 over the past 4 fiscal years. The on- board
staffing levels during this same period, however, have fluctuated from 29 to
34. The authorized funding levels have risen from $3.8 million in 1997 to
$4.2 million in 2000, in constant 1999 dollars. The average time OPR spent
on each investigation for which it substantiated allegations of misconduct
was 9.3 months in fiscal year 1997 and 9.9 months in fiscal year 1998. The
average time to complete investigations rose above the 12- month level in
fiscal year 1999, to 14.5 months. Of the 15 investigations it closed during
the first half of fiscal year 2000, OPR completed 5 within 12 months.
Administrative disciplinary actions that can be taken when professional
misconduct is found can range from an oral reprimand to termination of
employment, depending on the circumstances of each case, such as the nature
and severity of the offense and the experience level of the subject
attorney. Justice OPR does not impose final disciplinary actions; rather, it
recommends a range of disciplinary actions when its investigations
substantiate that attorneys engaged in professional misconduct. It is the
responsibility of the head of the office where the attorney works to impose
final disciplinary action and report to OPR on what action was taken. The
head of the office must get approval from the Deputy Attorney General should
he or she want to impose a disciplinary action either more or less severe
than the range of disciplinary actions recommended by OPR. For professional
misconduct cases substantiated by OPR from fiscal year 1997 Results in Brief
B- 284828 Page 3 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
through the first half of 2000, the final disciplinary actions taken
deviated from OPR's recommended range about 26 percent of the time. Half of
the actual disciplinary actions imposed, in those cases, were more severe
than OPR's recommended range, and half were less severe.
Justice OPR is also responsible for overseeing, on behalf of the Attorney
General, the operations of similar offices in two other Justice components,
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). These agencies have established their own OPRs, which
are tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct by employees in
their respective agencies. Justice OPR monitors the investigative and other
activities of these offices through the receipt of contemporaneous reports
and communications from FBI and DEA officials. Justice OPR also relies on
FBI and DEA monthly status reports which show the number of matters opened
and the disposition of closed matters, to stay abreast of their activities.
OPR has taken action to implement our prior recommendations. In response to
recommendations in our 1992 report, 3 OPR has established written
investigative procedures. In response to the findings contained in our 1994
report, 4 the Attorney General issued an order clarifying the jurisdiction
for both OPR and Justice's Office of the Inspector General (Justice OIG).
With respect to Hyde Amendment cases, OPR reviews monthly Justice reports on
such claims for fees to determine whether there are any matters that should
be investigated. At the time of our review, nine matters were in various
stages of investigation or inquiry and one had been closed by OPR on June
11, 2000. Regarding implementing the Citizens Protection Act, OPR evaluates
the subjects' conduct by applying the most stringent rules of either the
state bar association where the subject is licensed or the state where the
case took place.
In a letter dated July 28, 2000, OPR's Deputy Counsel stated that Justice
had no comments on the substance of our report. However, she provided some
technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
The Attorney General created OPR in December 1975 to help ensure that
Justice employees continue to uphold high ethical standards. Until 1994,
3 Employee Misconduct: Justice Should Clearly Document Investigative
Actions, (GAO/ GGD- 92- 31, Feb. 7, 1992). 4 Office of General Counsel
Opinion (GAO/ OGC- 94- 24, Apr. 15, 1994). Background
B- 284828 Page 4 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
OPR conducted investigations into allegations of misconduct by any Justice
employee. Following the appointment of a permanent Inspector General in
1990, jurisdictional disputes developed and cooperation between OPR and
Justice's OIG declined.
To resolve these disputes, the Attorney General issued Justice Order 1931-
94 on November 8, 1994, to clarify the respective jurisdictions of OPR and
OIG. As defined in that order, OPR has jurisdiction to investigate
allegations of professional misconduct involving Justice attorneys. Attorney
General Order 1931- 94 also gave OPR jurisdiction to investigate allegations
of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when they are related to
allegations of misconduct by attorneys within OPR's jurisdiction.
To determine how OPR investigates allegations of misconduct, we reviewed
� documents describing OPR investigative policies and procedures, such as
OPR's Analytical Framework;
� OPR Annual Reports for fiscal years 1997 and 1998;
� case files and database printouts from OPR's internal case management
systems; and
� applicable laws and regulations. We also discussed OPR investigative
procedures and clarified related issues with OPR officials.
To determine the degree to which OPR's workload and budget have changed, we
reviewed budgetary and staffing information from OPR officials and Justice's
fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Information on OPR performance measures
and workload statistics was obtained from Justice's Fiscal Year 2001 Summary
Performance Plan, Justice's fiscal year 2001 budget submission, and OPR
officials responsible for maintaining workload statistics.
To identify the possible range of disciplinary actions and procedures if
employee misconduct is found, we reviewed (1) regulations and policies on
Justice's disciplinary processes, including Human Resources Order 1200.1, on
Discipline and Adverse Actions; and (2) general guidelines for disciplining
attorneys, such as the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement
published by the American Bar Association (ABA). We also discussed the
process for disciplining Justice attorneys with Justice OPR officials. Scope
and
Methodology
B- 284828 Page 5 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
To determine Justice OPR's oversight relationships with similar offices in
other Justice components, we discussed relevant issues with officials from
Justice, FBI, and DEA OPRs, as well as Justice's OIG. In addition, we
reviewed procedures, statistics, and reports on investigative activities
published by relevant Justice components to compare organizational and
procedural differences with Justice OPR's counterparts.
To determine the extent to which OPR has implemented our prior
recommendations, we reviewed our relevant reports. We also reviewed two 1998
Justice OIG reports concerning travel abuses by certain OPR attorneys. We
then interviewed OPR officials to obtain their views on how they had
implemented our prior and OIG recommendations, reviewed applicable
regulations issued by OPR in response to these reports, and performed
separate reviews of OPR's case files and internal case management system in
order to determine the degree to which OPR had implemented our prior
recommendations.
To determine OPR's efforts relative to the Hyde Amendment and the Citizens
Protection Act, we
� reviewed the respective statutes;
� held discussions with OPR officials on OPR's role in implementing these
provisions;
� reviewed regulations promulgated pursuant to these statutes;
� reviewed OPR documentation and correspondence related to implementation of
these provisions; and
� discussed the impacts of these laws and provisions with external
organizations, such as the ABA.
We performed our work from January to July 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of
this report from the Attorney General or her designee. OPR's Deputy Counsel
responded in a letter dated July 28, 2000, which we discuss at the end of
this report.
Generally, we relied on the workload statistics, such as the numbers of
complaints received, provided to us by OPR. In reviewing how OPR conducts
its investigations, we did not directly observe how OPR employees perform
their investigative duties, nor did we reinvestigate closed OPR matters.
However, we reviewed a limited number of case files to determine (1) whether
required documentation was included to indicate what had been done during
the investigations, (2) who had been interviewed, and (3) what conclusions
had been reached by OPR. From a Data Accuracy and
Reliability
B- 284828 Page 6 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
list of 698 closed cases handled by OPR attorneys during fiscal years 1997
through 1999, we reviewed 8 randomly selected cases. The results of these
case reviews are not projectible to the universe of closed cases. To
demonstrate the types of matters handled by OPR's program analysts, OPR
officials provided us with an additional 16 cases closed during the same
period. We also reviewed a printout summary from OPR's case management
database for all of the investigations in which OPR substantiated the
allegations of misconduct for fiscal year 1997 through the first half of
fiscal year 2000. 5
On the basis of our limited review of case files and discussions with OPR
officials, it appears that OPR is following its procedures and internal
controls for conducting inquiries into allegations of misconduct by Justice
attorneys. Generally, the files that we reviewed included sufficient
documentation, although varying in degrees of organization, to allow one to
understand what had been done during the investigation, who had been
interviewed, and what conclusions were reached by OPR.
Under OPR's investigative procedures, upon receiving a written complaint
alleging misconduct, a program analyst is to make a preliminary
determination as to whether the allegations fall within OPR's jurisdiction
and an inquiry is warranted, or whether it should be closed
administratively. A complaint may be closed administratively if, for
example, it
� should be referred to another Justice component, for example, OIG or the
FBI's OPR;
� should be consolidated with another matter already open;
� lacks sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry; or
� involves issues still before the courts. OPR's Deputy Counsel is to review
and approve any determination made by a program analyst to close a matter
administratively.
If the complaint involves matters that appear to be a violation of a
criminal law, OPR is to refer the matter to Justice's Public Integrity
Section or the appropriate U. S. Attorney's office. If a complaint is within
OPR's jurisdiction and an inquiry is warranted, the matter is to be assigned
to an OPR Assistant Counsel. The Assistant Counsel is to notify the subject
of the allegations and request a written response to those allegations. On
the basis of the subject's written response, the Assistant Counsel handling
the
5 Fiscal year 2000 data are as of March 31, 2000. How OPR Conducts
Inquiries Into Allegations of Misconduct
OPR's Investigative Procedures
B- 284828 Page 7 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
matter can either (1) close the matter as unsubstantiated with a written
memorandum to the file or (2) determine that additional information is
needed to resolve the matter and convert the inquiry to a full
investigation. According to OPR officials, the decision to convert an
inquiry to an investigation is approved by the Deputy Counsel. Further, the
decision to close an inquiry or investigation is approved by both the
Counsel and Deputy Counsel in OPR.
According to OPR officials, when a full investigation is warranted, the
Assistant Counsel is to conduct interviews of the subject, complainant, any
witnesses, and others as deemed appropriate. The Assistant Counsel is also
to collect and review any documentation submitted by the parties involved.
On the basis of this investigation, the Assistant Counsel is to prepare a
report of the findings in the matter. The Counsel and the Deputy Counsel
review and approve the report. If the allegations are substantiated as
professional misconduct, OPR is to recommend a range of disciplinary actions
to the head of the office where the subject works, who in turn is
responsible for deciding what final disciplinary actions are taken.
See appendix I for a flowchart that outlines OPR's general process for
handling complaints alleging misconduct.
OPR's budget for fiscal year 2000 authorized 35 staff positions- 21
attorneys and 14 support staff (e. g., program analysts, paralegals, and
clerical staff) to carry out its responsibilities for investigating
allegations of misconduct against Justice attorneys. As of March 31, 2000,
OPR had 31 staff on board- 18 attorneys and 13 support staff (4 program
analysts, 3 paralegals, 2 Freedom of Information Act specialists, 1 computer
specialist, and 3 administrative support staff). In constant dollars, OPR's
authorized funding has remained fairly stable from fiscal year 1997 to
fiscal year 2000. Table 1 shows OPR's authorized and actual staffing levels
and authorized funding levels since fiscal year 1997.
Fiscal year Budget 1997 1998 1999 2000 a
Staffing levels Authorized 33 35 35 35 Actual 29 31 34 31 Authorized funding
(in millions) $3.7 $4.1 $4.3 $4.3 Funding in constant 1999 dollars (in
millions) $3.8 $4.2 $4.3 $4.2 a Actual staffing level is as of March 31,
2000.
Source: OPR and Gross Domestic Product Price Index.
OPR's Budget and Workload Statistics
Table 1: OPR's Authorized and Actual Staffing and Funding Levels
B- 284828 Page 8 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
Over the past 3 fiscal years, OPR has received about 1,000 complaints each
year of alleged misconduct by Justice personnel. About half of the
complaints received were handled by OPR's program analysts and were closed
administratively for reasons such as
� the allegations of misconduct did not fall within OPR's jurisdiction,
� the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, or
� the allegations involved issues that were still before the courts. Table 2
shows the number of complaints received by OPR for the last 3 full fiscal
years and the first half of fiscal year 2000, and the disposition for the
closed investigations.
Fiscal year Number of matters 1997 1998 1999 2000 a
Complaints received 1,085 982 1,340 506 Investigations opened 98 77 88 58
Investigations closed 124 83 63 47 Of the closed investigations, number in
which “professional misconduct” b was found 20 12 12 5 Of the
closed investigations, number in which OPR found the Justice attorney
exercised “poor judgment” c (lesser offense) 16 15 12 12 Number
of complaints handled by OPR attorneys as inquiries or miscellaneous matters
(not investigations), and closed 370 468 428 149 Number of matters handled
by OPR program analysts as miscellaneous matters and closed 579 409 776 303
a Fiscal year 2000 data are as of March 31, 2000.
b OPR officially recognizes professional misconduct at two levels:
intentional misconduct or reckless disregard. According to OPR, “an
attorney engages in intentional misconduct when (1) the attorney acts with
the purpose of violating an obligation imposed by law, applicable rule of
professional conduct, or department policy or regulation or (2) acts knowing
that the natural and probable consequences of his or her action is to
violate the obligation. An attorney acts in reckless disregard of an
obligation when the attorney (1) knows or should know of the obligation, (2)
knows or should know that his or her conduct involves a substantial
likelihood that the obligation will be violated, and (3) nonetheless engages
in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under the
circumstances.” c OPR defines poor judgment as when an attorney is
faced with alternative courses of actions, the
attorney chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast to the action
that the department may reasonably expect an attorney exercising good
judgment to take.
Source: OPR.
Complaints of misconduct allegations may be received from a variety of
sources, such as judges, opposing attorneys, other department personnel, or
private citizens. Table 3 shows the sources of the complaints for the
investigations that OPR opened during fiscal year 1997 through the first
half of fiscal year 2000. Number of Complaints
Received
Table 2: Number of Complaints Received by OPR During Fiscal Years 1997 to
2000
Sources of Complaints
B- 284828 Page 9 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
Fiscal year Source of complaint 1997 1998 1999 2000 a
Justice employees or components 42 29 11 15 Judicial findings or criticism
32 28 53 33 Private attorneys 10 10 14 4 Private parties 7 5 7 3 Other
federal, state, or local agencies 5 5 2 1 Congressional referrals 1 0 0 0
Inmates 1 0 1 2
Total 98 77 88 58
a Fiscal year 2000 data are as of March 31, 2000. Source: OPR.
Over the years, OPR has developed codes to categorize the allegations for
reporting purposes in its case tracking system. A complaint can contain more
than one allegation of misconduct. For example, a complainant may write to
OPR that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) improperly disclosed
information about a case to the media, that he misrepresented information
during the trial, and that he made improper remarks during closing
arguments. In this instance, the allegations would be coded by OPR as
unauthorized disclosure of confidential, including grand jury, information;
misrepresentation to the court and/ or opposing counsel; and improper
remarks to a grand jury, during trial, or in pleadings. Table 4 shows the
types of allegations received for the investigations that OPR closed from
fiscal year 1997 through the first half of fiscal year 2000.
Type of allegations Investigations Inquiries Fiscal year Fiscal year 1997
1998 1999 2000 a 1999 b 2000 a
Abuse of authority, including abuse of prosecutorial discretion 43 44 35 14
44 37 Unauthorized disclosure of confidential, including grand jury,
information 15 13 12 4 9 16 Misrepresentation to the court and/ or opposing
counsel 25 21 13 5 3 9 Improper remarks to a grand jury, during trial, or in
pleadings 12 10 23 19 0 6 Failure to comply with court orders or federal
rules 2 12 8 6 0 1 Conflict of interest 16 3 7 2 6 5 Failure to perform/
dereliction of duty 20 15 12 3 7 18 Failure to comply with certain federal
requirements regarding the discovery and disclosure of evidence 11 12 8 12 3
4 Failure to comply with DOJ rules and regulations 3 4 6 3 11 7 Subornation
of perjury/ failure to correct false testimony 5 3 6 3 3 5 Fitness to
practice law 10 4 3 4 4 7 Interference with defendant's rights 2 1 3 0 2 7
Other c 7 8 8 4 2 6
Total 171 150 144 79 94 128
a Fiscal year 2000 data are as of March 31, 2000.
Table 3: Sources of Complaints for Investigations Opened by OPR
Types of Allegations
Table 4: Types of Allegations for Investigations Closed by OPR
B- 284828 Page 10 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
b The inquiries database was not implemented until July 1999. c Includes
instances of failure to comply with civil discovery; improper contact with
represented parties; unauthorized practice of law; lateness (i. e., missing
filing dates); and failure to comply with congressional discovery request.
Source: OPR.
As shown in table 3, one of the major sources of complaints of misconduct is
judicial findings or criticisms. Specifically, during trial proceedings, a
judge could admonish an AUSA for improper conduct. A judge could also
contact the U. S. Attorney in that district, who would then refer the matter
to OPR. In some cases, the judge might contact OPR directly.
Transcripts of judicial decisions or opinions could also include references
of judicial admonishments or criticisms of an AUSA made by the judge.
According to OPR officials, they routinely conduct searches of legal
databases to determine if these types of criticism have occurred. Table 5
shows the disposition of closed investigations initiated by OPR as a result
of judicial findings or criticisms.
Fiscal year Disposition 1997 1998 1999 2000 a
Professional misconduct 8 4 6 3 Poor judgment 2 6 4 2 Performance problems,
mistakes, or other criticisms 0 1 0 5 No finding of misconduct, poor
judgment, or other criticism 13 17 17 13
Total 23 28 27 23
a Fiscal year 2000 data are as of March 31, 2000. Source: OPR.
OPR's one key performance goal is to fully investigate and resolve
allegations of misconduct in less than 12 months. This goal is linked to
Justice's departmentwide strategic goal of strengthening oversight and
integrity programs. According to OPR officials, in addition to the 12- month
goal for investigations, OPR also has an informal, internal goal of
completing all inquiries or converting them to investigations within 6
months. As part of Justice's fiscal year 2001 Summary Performance Plan, OPR
included baseline trend data and specific target levels for the number of
investigations it expected to complete within 12 months for fiscal years
2000 and 2001. For example, OPR established target levels of 80 and 90
investigations to be completed within 1 year in fiscal years 2000 and 2001,
respectively.
We reviewed a computer summary from OPR's case management system for all of
the investigations closed for fiscal year 1997 through the first half
Judicial Findings or
Criticisms
Table 5: Disposition of Closed Investigations Initiated by OPR as a Result
of Judicial Findings or Criticisms
Performance Goals
B- 284828 Page 11 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
of fiscal year 2000 in which the allegations were substantiated for either
professional misconduct or for poor judgment. During fiscal years 1997 and
1998, OPR on average took less than 12 months to complete the
investigations. However, for fiscal year 1999 and the first half of fiscal
year 2000, the average time for OPR to complete the investigations increased
to 14.5 and 17.7 months, respectively. In May 1999, OPR formally adopted a
performance goal of fully investigating allegations of professional
misconduct by Justice attorneys and resolving them in less than 12 months.
Table 6 shows the number of cases OPR completed in 12 months or less and the
average months to complete investigations, by fiscal year.
Fiscal year Number of cases
closed Number of cases
completed in less than 12 months
Percentage of cases completed in less than
12 months Average number of months
per case
1997 36 25 69% 9.3 1998 27 18 67% 9.9 1999 21 7 33% 14.5 2000 a 15 5 33%
17.7 b
Total 99 55 56% 11.8
a Fiscal year 2000 data are as of March 31, 2000. b The average time, in
months, for OPR to close investigations for fiscal year 2000 might be lower
for the entire fiscal year because, generally, investigations were closed
faster towards the end of each fiscal year.
Source: GAO analysis of computer summary from OPR's case management system.
OPR attributed the increase in the average length of time it took to close
fiscal year 2000 investigations to an increase in the caseloads of its
attorneys while staffing levels remained largely unchanged. OPR officials
stated that this was due to a hiring freeze initiated by Justice as of
November 23, 1999. OPR also noted that it was not fully staffed during this
period and that, as of March 31, 2000, it had only 18 attorneys. OPR
believed it needed a staff of 40, including 24 attorneys, to meet its
performance goals of completing investigations within 12 months and
inquiries within 6 months. In addition, according to OPR, it conducted a
number of protracted investigations into highly sensitive and complex
matters during this period.
When professional misconduct is found, OPR is to recommend a range of
disciplinary actions consistent with its established procedures. OPR
officially recognizes professional misconduct at two levels: intentional
misconduct or reckless disregard. According to OPR,
Table 6: Number of Investigations Completed in 12 Months or Less and the
Average Number of Months to Complete Investigations, by Fiscal Year
Disciplinary Actions and Procedures If Misconduct Is Found
B- 284828 Page 12 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
“An attorney engages in intentional misconduct when (1) the attorney
acts with the purpose of violating an obligation imposed by law, applicable
rule of professional conduct, or department policy or regulation or (2) acts
knowing that the natural and probable consequences of his or her action is
to violate the obligation. An attorney acts in reckless disregard of an
obligation when the attorney (1) knows or should know of the obligation, (2)
knows or should know that his or her conduct involves a substantial
likelihood that the obligation will be violated, and (3) nonetheless engages
in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under the
circumstances.”
Justice Order 1752. 1A, “Standard Schedule of Disciplinary Offenses
and Penalties,” dated April 27, 1981, contained a schedule of
recommended ranges of disciplinary actions for various misconduct activities
that were to be applied departmentwide. Justice Order 1200.1, issued August
25, 1998, rescinded Order 1752.1A and authorized each Justice division or
bureau to develop unit- specific recommended ranges of disciplinary actions
for employee misconduct. According to OPR officials, the superceded Justice
disciplinary order contained little attorney- specific guidance on imposing
appropriate administrative penalties. In the absence of a prescribed range
of recommended discipline, OPR makes recommendations on the basis of what it
has recommended in past similar investigations where misconduct was
substantiated. OPR maintains an internal document that lists the ranges of
disciplinary actions recommended according to the types of misconduct found,
what factors were considered in formulating OPR's range of recommended
discipline, and what final actions were taken. According to OPR officials,
this document develops a body of precedent for recommending discipline that
is consistent with similar findings of misconduct.
The head of the office where the subject works (e. g., Justice's Civil
Division) is responsible for determining the final discipline to be imposed.
Once discipline is imposed subsequent to an OPR finding of misconduct, the
office is supposed to report back to OPR on what final disciplinary actions
were taken. Any deviation by the head of the office from OPR's recommended
range of actions, either less or more severe, must be approved by the Deputy
Attorney General.
We reviewed the internal document that OPR maintains to track the
recommended ranges of disciplinary actions for investigations where
misconduct allegations were substantiated. For those investigations closed
in fiscal year 1997 through the first half of fiscal year 2000, the final
actions taken deviated from what OPR recommended in about 26 percent of the
investigations. Of those that deviated, half were more severe than what OPR
recommended and half were less severe.
B- 284828 Page 13 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
OPR can also substantiate the allegations but, instead of finding
professional misconduct, find that the subject used poor judgment. According
to OPR,
“An attorney exercises poor judgment when, faced with alternative
courses of actions, the attorney chooses a course of action that is in
marked contrast to the action that the department may reasonably expect an
attorney exercising good judgment to take.”
If OPR finds that a Justice attorney exercised poor judgment, OPR makes no
recommendations of disciplinary action since professional misconduct was not
found. Instead, the matter is referred to the head of the office where the
attorney works for “consideration in a management context.”
After reviewing OPR's findings, the head of the office where the subject
works has the discretion to decide whether disciplinary measures are
appropriate, training or counseling is needed, or no further actions are
necessary. OPR also followed up with the offices to determine what, if
anything, had been done and incorporated this information into its internal
document for tracking disciplinary actions.
OPR can also determine that the allegations are unfounded or that a subject
simply made a mistake in performing his/ her duties to investigate,
litigate, or prosecute. In these instances, OPR closes the case as
unsubstantiated; that is, it could find no basis to support the allegations
and the matter is closed without sanctions.
As noted earlier in this report, if the matter involved appears to be a
violation of a criminal law, OPR refers the matter to Justice's Public
Integrity Section or the appropriate U. S. Attorney's office.
After completing its investigation, if Justice OPR substantiates that a
Justice attorney committed intentional misconduct, its policy is to notify
the state bar( s) of which the attorney is a member of these findings.
Figure 1 shows the number of matters referred to state bars for fiscal year
1997 through the first fiscal year half of 2000. Referrals to State Bar
Associations
B- 284828 Page 14 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
a According to an OPR official, there have been no referrals in fiscal year
2000 to date because OPR does not notify state bars as to findings of
intentional misconduct by Justice attorneys until the applicable
disciplinary process has “run its course.” Once final discipline
has been imposed, then the state bar is notified. Fiscal year 2000 data are
as of June 2000.
Source: OPR.
According to OPR officials, they encourage state bars to defer to OPR in
investigating complaints against Justice attorneys because they believe that
OPR is in the best position to conduct the investigations. OPR officials
believe that they have greater and easier access to Justice employees and
department documentation. When state bars do defer to OPR, OPR reciprocates
by forwarding its relevant investigative reports to the bar association with
jurisdiction over the Justice attorney.
Justice OPR has some limited oversight responsibilities over similar offices
in two other Justice components, FBI and DEA. These agencies have
established their own OPRs, which are tasked with investigating allegations
of misconduct by employees in their respective agencies. Justice OPR's
oversight functions include monitoring matters referred to and being
investigated by FBI and DEA OPRs, opining on prosecutive issues related to
investigations, and conducting joint investigations in specialized
situations.
Figure 1: Number of Matters OPR Referred to State Bar Associations
OPR's Working Relationships With Other Similar Justice Components
B- 284828 Page 15 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
Justice OPR's oversight of the FBI and DEA OPRs includes information
sharing. The FBI and DEA OPRs provide monthly lists of matters opened and
resolved to Justice OPR. In addition, when it opens an investigation of
employee misconduct, FBI OPR sends a written notice to Justice OPR. These
lists include the disposition of the allegations in each closed
investigation, the subject's position, and other information. Justice OPR
officials said that they review these lists for any irregularities, such as
unusually light or severe disciplinary actions that were imposed. In
addition, Justice OPR publishes an annual report that includes case
statistics and sample summaries from closed investigations conducted by FBI
and DEA OPRs.
Justice OPR has limited oversight responsibility, and both the FBI and DEA
OPRs operate fairly autonomously. Justice OPR and these two offices have
separate jurisdictions and distinct case file systems. The FBI and DEA OPRs
also have more specific investigative procedures, formal policies that
direct the preparation of investigative reports, and formal internal
disciplinary and appeals processes. In addition, FBI and DEA OPRs'
investigative procedures tend to be more structured. According to FBI and
DEA OPR officials, they commonly use signed, sworn statements as an
investigative tool; polygraph tests to help resolve factual issues; and
court reporters to fully document interviews when serious allegations are
present.
Officials from Justice, FBI, and DEA OPRs characterized their working
relationships as cooperative. For instance, Justice OPR officials said that
they are available for consultation on professional responsibility matters.
Also, Justice OPR conducts joint investigations with the FBI or DEA OPRs,
such as in the case of overlapping jurisdictions when Justice attorneys and
employees of those agencies are involved in alleged misconduct. The FBI and
DEA OPRs can also transfer matters normally under their jurisdiction to
Justice OPR if a conflict of interest is present, such as in cases in which
the allegations involve officials from their OPR.
Justice OPR officials stated that when they receive a complaint concerning
an employee under the FBI or DEA OPR's jurisdiction, absent any special
circumstances, they refer the matter to the respective OPR. The referral
includes a cover memorandum signed by the Deputy Counsel and the original
complaint. Once a matter is referred to FBI or DEA OPR, Justice OPR closes
the matter in its computer database and does not generally track the
specific referrals since the subjects are outside its jurisdiction. However,
with significant matters, such as allegations that might rise to the level
of criminality, Justice OPR can request that the FBI and DEA
B- 284828 Page 16 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
OPRs keep it advised on the status of the complaint and the resolution of
any resulting investigations.
We have issued reports on OPR operations in 1992, 1994, and 1995. 6 Of these
three reports, only our 1992 report contained recommendations to correct OPR
deficiencies. In the 1992 report, we recommended that the Attorney General
direct the Counsel, OPR, to
� establish basic standards for conducting OPR investigations;
� establish standards for case documentation, including requirements for the
contents of each case file, such as a listing of potential interview
subjects in the case, a chronology of actions taken, and a rationale for
actions taken or not taken and for decisions reached;
� as appropriate, review the case files to identify any possible systemic
changes that might be needed to Justice's procedures and operations; and
� follow up more consistently on the results of misconduct investigations
done by other components and what disciplinary actions, if any, were taken
as a result of all misconduct investigations- both those done by OPR
attorneys and those done by other components within Justice. This
information should be part of the files.
OPR has taken action to respond to each recommendation. On May 12, 1992, OPR
issued internal guidelines for investigating allegations of misconduct and
for documenting in the case files the investigative work done, including the
rationale for why some actions may not have been completed and, for
substantiated cases, what disciplinary actions were taken. The internal
guidelines also indicated that OPR would require that a review of case files
for systemic problems be done on at least an annual basis. As noted on page
6 of this report, OPR appears to be adhering to these guidelines.
With respect to identifying possible systemic problems, OPR provided
examples of policy changes it recommended on the basis of its reviews of
case files. For example, OPR found that some recent court cases might
indicate an increased judicial willingness, under certain circumstances, to
declare nonfederal participants “functionally part” of a federal
prosecutorial team, who would be subject to those disclosure
responsibilities applicable to the U. S. Attorneys. Accordingly, OPR
suggested that the Attorney General consider advising all districts to
provide guidance to nonfederal case agents on the procedures for preserving
all notes, witness statements, and other records relating to a
6 GAO/ GGD- 92- 31; GAO/ OGC- 94- 24; and GAO/ OSI- 95- 8. Changes OPR Has
Made as a Result of Our Prior Reports
B- 284828 Page 17 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
case. In response to OPR's suggestion, the Executive Office for U. S.
Attorneys advised that it had made available to all U. S. Attorney's offices
nationwide a letter reminding agents of their responsibilities to preserve
notes made during their investigations. See appendix II for further details
about this and other examples of OPR's reviews of systemic problems.
Finally, OPR has taken action to consistently follow up on the final
disciplinary actions taken. As noted on page 12 of this report, the heads of
the offices where the employees work are responsible for deciding what the
final disciplinary actions will be and for reporting to OPR on what actions
were taken. An OPR official said that the offices generally do report back
to them on what actions were taken. However, according to OPR officials, OPR
also periodically follows up with individual Justice components to obtain
this information. OPR tracks the final disciplinary actions via an internal
document that lists (1) the OPR case number and subject name( s), (2) OPR's
finding, (3) OPR's recommended range of disciplinary actions, and (4) the
final action( s) taken.
Our other two reports relating to OPR's operations and responsibilities did
not contain recommendations. The 1994 report 7 was an opinion by our Office
of General Counsel concerning the jurisdictional disputes over misconduct
matters between OPR and Justice's OIG. In response to this opinion, the
Attorney General issued an order clarifying the jurisdiction for both OPR
and OIG. The 1995 report 8 evaluated the extent to which OPR had addressed
our 1992 recommendations.
During our work, we became aware of two Justice OIG reports, issued in April
1998 and July 1998, relating to travel abuses by certain OPR attorneys. In
January 1998, while the OIG was conducting its investigation of travel
abuses, OPR's then Acting Counsel reexamined its travel regulations and, on
January 21, 1998, distributed a memorandum entitled “Policy on
Approval of Official Travel.” This internal OPR memo laid out travel
policies, such as use of the per- diem allowance method and that actual
subsistence would be approved on a case- by- case basis. In addition,
according to OPR officials, all OPR managers attended a meeting in February
1998 with Justice Management Division's Consolidated Administrative Office
staff, on further instructions for compliance with Justice's travel
regulations.
7 GAO/ OGC- 94- 24. 8 Department of Justice: Office of Professional
Responsibility's Case- Handling Procedures (GAO/ OSI- 95- 8, Mar. 31, 1995).
Justice OIG Reports
B- 284828 Page 18 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
The Hyde Attorneys Fees Amendment, enacted November 26, 1997, as part of
Justice's fiscal year 1998 appropriations act, 9 allows a defendant
acquitted in a criminal case to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other
litigating expenses where the federal government's position is found by the
court to be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.
Hyde Amendment cases provide another mechanism by which OPR can become aware
of matters relating to alleged misconduct by Justice attorneys. The
Appellate Section of Justice's Criminal Division produces monthly reports
summarizing all claims for attorneys' fees submitted pursuant to the Hyde
Amendment. According to OPR officials, they review these reports to
determine if the facts of the case constitute grounds for an OPR
investigation. OPR does not ordinarily investigate possible attorney
wrongdoing until the final outcome of the case is known. OPR officials said
this is because a claim for attorneys' fees under the Hyde Amendment may
result in additional litigation, which could produce more facts relevant to
an OPR investigation.
According to OPR officials, at the time of our review, OPR was looking into
nine matters, in various stages of investigation or inquiry, that stemmed
from Hyde Amendment claims and had closed one matter on June 11, 2000. Also,
Justice recently promulgated an internal regulation (DOJ Order 2030, signed
by the Attorney General on May 9, 2000) that designated responsibilities for
Justice components for paying awards relevant to Hyde Amendment claims.
The Citizens Protection Act, 10 otherwise known as the McDade- Murtha Act,
requires Justice litigators, including prosecutors in U. S. Attorney
offices, to be subject to the ethical standards of the state where such
attorney engages in that attorney's duties. Justice's implementing
regulations further defined the phrase “where such attorney engages in
that attorney's duties” to mean either (1) if a case is pending, the
rules of ethical conduct adopted by the court before which the case is
pending or (2) if there is no case pending, the rules of ethical conduct
that would be applied by the attorney's state of licensure.
In performing its responsibilities regarding the Citizens Protection Act,
according to the documents we reviewed OPR initially determined the state
bar( s) of which the subject was a member. In its notification letter to
9 P. L. 105- 119, 111 Stat. 2519, Section 617 (1997). 10 P. L. 105- 277,
section 801. OPR's Role in
Monitoring and Implementing the Hyde Amendment and the Citizens Protection
Act
B- 284828 Page 19 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
a subject of an OPR investigation, OPR requested that the subject identify
each state in which he or she was licensed to practice law. OPR evaluated
the attorney's conduct by applying the most stringent rules of either the
licensing state( s) or the state where the case took place. According to OPR
officials, this technique is necessary because Justice attorneys may appear
for the government in the courts of any jurisdiction, regardless of their
state of licensure, and because many Justice attorneys are licensed to
practice law by more than one state bar.
An OPR official described a hypothetical situation in which a Justice
attorney can handle a case in Virginia but also be subject to Ohio bar
rules. Justice attorneys have to be members of at least one state bar, but
not necessarily the one in which the case is pending. Therefore, a Justice
attorney arguing a case in Virginia could be held liable for misconduct as
defined by Ohio state bar rules, if the Justice attorney belongs to the Ohio
bar and the Ohio rules are more stringent. Conversely, in this hypothetical
situation, the attorney's conduct would be evaluated against the Virginia
rules if those bar rules were more stringent.
According to OPR officials, all Justice attorneys should be knowledgeable of
the rules of the state bar( s) to which they belong, and Justice maintains a
clearinghouse of all states' bar rules in its Professional Responsibility
Advisory Office.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney General or
her designee. OPR's Deputy Counsel responded in a letter dated July 28,
2000, that Justice had no comments on the substance of the report. However,
she provided some technical comments, which we incorporated where
appropriate.
As arranged with the Committee, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 30 days after its date. We will then send copies to Senator
Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority
Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Representative John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on the Judiciary; the Honorable
Janet Reno, Attorney General; the Honorable Donnie R. Marshall,
Administrator, DEA; the Honorable Louis Freeh, Director, FBI; and the
Honorable Robert L. Ashbaugh, Acting Inspector General, Department of
Justice. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Agency
Comments
B- 284828 Page 20 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's
Operations
Please contact Weldon McPhail or me on 512- 8777 if you or your staff have
any questions. Other major contributors to this report are acknowledged in
appendix III.
Richard M. Stana Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
Page 21 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Page 22 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Contents 1 Letter 24 Appendix I Flow Chart of OPR's Investigative Procedures
26 Documentation of Responsibilities of Nonfederal Agents
Involved in Criminal Investigations 26
Disclosure and Discovery Obligations and Conflicts of Interest
27 Witness Cooperation in Multiple Jurisdictions 27 Attorney Bar Memberships
27 Appendix II
Examples of Policy Changes Recommended by OPR as a Result of Case File
Reviews
28 Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Table 1: OPR's Authorized and Actual Staffing and Funding Levels
7 Table 2: Number of Complaints Received by OPR During
Fiscal Years 1997 to 2000 8
Table 3: Sources of Complaints for Investigations Opened by OPR
9 Table 4: Types of Allegations for Investigations Closed by
OPR 9
Table 5: Disposition of Closed Investigations Initiated by OPR as a Result
of Judicial Findings or Criticisms
10 Table 6: Number of Investigations Completed in 12
Months or Less and the Average Number of Months to Complete Investigations,
by Fiscal Year
11 Tables
Figure 1: Number of Matters OPR Referred to State Bar Associations
14 Figures
Page 23 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Contents
Abbreviations
ABA American Bar Association AUSA Assistant United States Attorney DEA Drug
Enforcement Administration FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation OIG Office of
the Inspector General OPR Office of Professional Responsibility
Appendix I Flow Chart of OPR's Investigative Procedures
Page 24 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Appendix I Flow Chart of OPR's Investigative Procedures
Page 25 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Source: OPR
Appendix II Examples of Policy Changes Recommended by OPR as a Result of
Case File Reviews
Page 26 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
One of the recommendations we made in our 1992 report 1 was that OPR should,
as appropriate, review the case files to identify any possible systemic
changes that might be needed to Justice's procedures and operations. In
response to our recommendations, OPR issued internal guidelines, that among
other things, required that a review of case files for systemic problems be
done on at least an annual basis. We asked OPR for examples of instances
where it had identified systemic problems and made recommendations for
departmentwide or unit- specific changes. OPR provided the following
examples.
In July 1995, OPR advised the Attorney General of a potential problem
illustrated by a 1994 opinion of the U. S. District Court in Massachusetts,
United States v. Mannarino. 2
In Mannarino, the Court found that a state police officer was
“functionally part of the United States Attorney's prosecutorial
team” and was subject to those disclosure responsibilities applicable
to the United States Attorneys. 3 The Court was highly critical of the
government's “decision to leave the preservation of materials whose
disclosure was plainly required to a person unprepared by disposition or
training to perform that function.” 4
OPR noted that this and other recent cases may signal an increasing judicial
willingness in criminal cases to declare nonfederal agencies
“functionally part” of federal prosecutions. The U. S. Attorney
for the District of Massachusetts prepared a standard written notice to be
given to all nonfederal case agents participating in joint federal/
nonfederal investigations, directing them to preserve all notes, witness
statements, and other records relating to the case. OPR suggested that the
Attorney General consider whether such advice should be provided in all
districts.
In August 1996, the Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys (EOUSA) advised
that it had made available to all U. S. Attorneys' offices nationwide a
letter reminding agents of their responsibilities to preserve notes made
during investigations.
1 GAO/ GGD- 92- 31. 2 850 F. Supp. 57 (D. Mass. 1994). 3 Id. at 64, 68. 4 Id
at 71. Documentation of
Responsibilities of Nonfederal Agents Involved in Criminal Investigations
Appendix II Examples of Policy Changes Recommended by OPR as a Result of
Case File Reviews
Page 27 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
In May 1996, OPR advised the Attorney General that “[ t] he frequency
with which improper disclosures, conflicts of interest, and failure to
satisfy discovery obligations arise in misconduct allegations leads us to
suggest that you instruct appropriate components to stress these categories
in ongoing Departmental training.”
In August 1996, EOUSA advised OPR that it had designed a training course on
the handling of complex litigation that included instruction on these
issues. The training course was offered first in a district that OPR
reported as having an especially high rate of allegations of professional
misconduct.
In September 1996, OPR noted that it was investigating three complaints of
alleged misconduct arising out of friction between U. S. Attorneys' offices
over the joint use of witnesses. OPR advised the Attorney General that such
problems “may sometimes threaten and even undermine successful
prosecutions of significant cases,” and that such problems could be
expected to increase “as multi- jurisdictional prosecutions arising
out of related schemes become more common.” OPR stated that “[
t] he Department may want to implement procedures to address the resulting
frictions between jurisdictions.”
In August 1997, EOUSA advised all U. S. Attorneys to instruct Assistant U.
S. Attorneys to bring matters of this nature to the U. S. Attorneys'
attention for resolution, with the help, if necessary, of Justice's Criminal
Division.
In November 1996, OPR advised the Attorney General that it had become aware
that a Justice attorney who had been found by OPR to have engaged in
intentional professional misconduct was not an active member of any bar. OPR
had discovered this information in the process of implementing Justice's
policy on notifying the appropriate state bar of the finding of intentional
professional misconduct. OPR suggested that “the Department consider
asking the Office of Attorney Personnel Management to maintain a current
list (updated annually) of bar memberships for all Department attorneys.
This will help OPR in its inquiries: our attorneys report, as might be
expected, that asking subjects of investigations for their bar memberships
often seems to chill the interviews. Such a list will also assist the
Department by helping to insure that all attorneys are active members of a
bar in good standing.”
In May 1997, Justice adopted a new policy requiring all Justice attorneys to
certify annually that they are duly licensed and authorized to practice law
in at least one jurisdiction, and to identify the jurisdiction. Disclosure
and
Discovery Obligations and Conflicts of Interest
Witness Cooperation in Multiple Jurisdictions
Attorney Bar Memberships
Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 28 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512- 8777 Weldon McPhail, (202) 512- 8777 In
addition to those named above, Seto Bagdoyan, Geoffrey Hamilton, Andrew
Hoffman, Tim Outlaw, and Barry Seltser made key contributions to this
report. GAO Contacts
Acknowledgments
Page 29 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Page 30 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Page 31 GAO/ GGD- 00- 187 Office of Professional Responsibility's Operations
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to
the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent.
Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013
or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) U. S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number
(202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send e- mail message with “info” in the
body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www.
gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact
GAO FraudNET use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated
answering system)
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100
(182091)
*** End of document. ***