Make the Hand Fit the Glove: OPR Finds Professional Misconduct

Michael C. Wallace Sr., North Carolina Central University

Abstract

Abstract

The facts should fit the violation. When the evidence is not supported by the facts, the results undoubtedly affect an individual’s livelihood. The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the duty of investigating allegations of ethical violations by Justice Attorneys. However, in doing so, OPR does not always rely on legal precedent. This article focuses on OPR’s finding of intentional professional misconduct, in the case of a federal prosecutor, based on the flawed premise that an attorney-client relationship exists within the Department of Justice. More specifically, OPR abandoned well-established legal principles and found that a police officer and a supervisor are the clients of a federal prosecutor. By erroneously interpreting Rule 1.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Section 9-16.030 of the United States Attorney’s Manual, OPR recklessly made the facts fit an ethical violation and deprived a federal prosecutor of his livelihood rather than fulfilling its true purpose – ensuring that Department attorneys observe the highest level of professionalism.

It is imperative that OPR’s focus is seeking facts that an ethical violation has indeed occurred as opposed to manipulating the law in a way that supports its finding of a breach of ethics. As such, there is a need for an independent governmental agency or an internal mechanism that provides accountability and meaningful oversight of OPR’s process for determining whether a Department of Justice Attorney has engaged in intentional or professional misconduct. Utilizing an independent agency to conduct a complete and thorough analysis of facts and the law, apart from the Office of Professional Responsibility, will curtail the use of flawed legal premises in finding a Justice Attorney has committed ethical misconduct