Source: http://openjurist.org/152/f3d/741
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 07:20:26
Document Index: 173717777

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 528', '§ 594', '§ 596', '§ 594', '§ 3153', '§ 3153', '§ 596', '§ 45', '§ 594', '§ 528']

152 F. 3d 741 - Starr United States Department of Justice v. T Mandanici HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series152 F.3d
Finally, we feel obliged to explore two other possible grounds for appellate jurisdiction, each of which fails for different reasons. First, it is well-established that courts of appeal may exercise supervisory authority over lower courts. See, e.g., La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 259-260, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957). Such authority is typically exercised in the context of criminal proceedings, but has been extended on occasion to monitor the adjudication of civil and quasi-criminal matters. See, e.g., In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88 (1st Cir.1990) (Globe); In re Furlong, 885 F.2d 815, 819 (11th Cir.1989); In re Snyder, 770 F.2d 743 (8th Cir.1985). These extensions notwithstanding, this court has circumscribed its exercise of supervisory authority to the "judicial activities" of the district courts. In re Pickett, 842 F.2d 993, 995 (8th Cir.1988). Although the underlying allegations may give rise to disciplinary proceedings which constitute judicial activity, we believe that our supervisory authority is further circumscribed by Mandanici's lack of a personal interest in this litigation.
Second, Rule 46(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in pertinent part: "When it is shown to the court that any member of its bar has been ... guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of the court, the member will be subject to suspension or disbarment by the court." Fed. R.App. P. 46(b). Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was admitted to the bar of this court on May 9, 1995, and thus, like any other attorney of this court, is subject to this rule. However, as should be obvious from its similarity to Rule V(A), Rule 46 fails to confer standing upon Mandanici (and thus, jurisdiction upon this court) for the same reasons that Rule V(A) fails to do so-neither rule elevates Mandanici's status above that of an informant.
I first note that it is not entirely clear from the record how the district court treated the letter-complaints filed by Mr. Mandanici. If the letters were simply treated as disciplinary grievances, then the district court had inherent power to consider the substantive allegations contained therein. See Mattice v. Meyer, 353 F.2d 316, 319 (8th Cir.1965). Otherwise, if they were treated as complaints filed by Mr. Mandanici as a party to the action, the district court had no jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Although it is fundamental that every court has inherent authority to disbar or discipline attorneys for unprofessional conduct, that is not the nature of this matter as presented in this court. See id. As noted by Judge McMillian, for more than thirty years this circuit has maintained that an individual such as Mr. Mandanici lacks standing to "institute and maintain" an action or an appeal seeking discipline against or disbarment of a lawyer. Id. at 318; accord In Matter of Continental Steel Corp., 966 F.2d 1456, 1992 WL 133897 (7th Cir.1992) (unpublished table decision) (embracing Mattice specifically). A person who files an ethics grievance concerning a particular attorney does nothing more than "suppl[y] information for the court's consideration." Mattice, 353 F.2d at 319 (citation omitted). He does not thereby "initiate an action." Id. If the district court "decides not to proceed with the matter, the complainant has no recourse." Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, Mr. Mandanici's current effort before this court must be construed as an attempt to invoke our Article III jurisdiction to seek review of an unappealable event.
"Article III of the Constitution limits the 'judicial power' of the United States to the resolution of 'cases' and 'controversies,' " and "[a]s an incident to the elaboration of this bedrock requirement, [the Supreme Court] has always required that a litigant have 'standing' to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit." Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). The federal courts must consider their own jurisdiction, "and standing 'is perhaps the most important of [the jurisdictional] doctrines.' " United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995) (quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990)) (alteration in original). Thus, in this appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, both in this court and in the court from which the record comes. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, --- U.S. ----, ----, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). This requirement is a threshold matter that " 'spring[s] from the nature and limits' " of the federal judicial power and is " 'inflexible and without exception.' " Id. (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884)) (alteration in original). When this first question is answered, it is clear that Mr. Mandanici lacks standing directly to assert his various disciplinary complaints, see Opinion of McMillian at 17, and, as a result, this court does not have the jurisdiction or the power to consider them in any manner whatsoever. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154-55, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990).
Without jurisdiction, which is clearly absent here, this court " 'cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases [or fails to exist in the first instance], the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.' " Steel Co., --- U.S. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1012 (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)). Accordingly, our proper course of action is to announce our complete lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss this case.
This is a narrow definition of a disqualifying political conflict of interest. By no stretch of the imagination does Independent Counsel Starr have a "political relationship" with Pepperdine University or publisher Scaife within the meaning of § 528(c)(1). And it is nearly as preposterous to speculate that Pepperdine or even Scaife has a "specific and substantial interest" that would be "directly affected" by Mr. Starr's grand jury investigations. Thus, the rule proposed by Judge McMillian finds no support in the most pertinent federal statutes and regulations.
Looking at the question more broadly, it is not surprising that federal law does not restrict or disqualify prosecutors on the basis of vaguely defined political conflicts of interest. Judge McMillian's proposal seems premised on the notion that prosecutors should be subject to the same conflict-of-interest standards as judges. But that ignores the very different public functions these officeholders perform. As the Supreme Court explained in Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 248-50, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980):
(Citations omitted.) For these reasons, prosecutor disqualification cases have primarily focused on issues specifically addressed in 28 U.S.C. § 594(j)--whether the prosecutor, or a private party who is a client of the prosecutor, has a direct personal or financial interest in the criminal proceeding at issue. Cf. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 805-08, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987).
As even a brief look at history will confirm, judicial reluctance to question a prosecutor's political background or views is even more important in the type of criminal proceeding at issue in this case, the investigation of corruption and other misconduct by high-ranking government officials. The Independent Counsel Act reflects congressional recognition that effective investigation of on-going misconduct requires prosecutors who "enjoy some measure of independence from the Executive Branch." In Re Olson, 818 F.2d 34, 42 (D.C.Cir.1987). The impetus for aggressive investigations has usually come from an officeholder's political opposition.26 Therefore, it is not surprising that some of our most well-known and successful corruption fighters have been investigators and prosecutors who brought to the task highly partisan backgrounds and strong personal political ambitions.
Another famous investigator was the highly partisan Thomas E. Dewey, who actively sought appointment as a New York prosecutor to investigate mob criminal activity in 1935. "[F]rom the outset, Dewey and his allies saw the prosecutor's post as a stepping-stone to the governorship and the White House," and it was widely suspected that Dewey's mentor, United States Attorney George Medalie, promoted Dewey for the position to gain control of the Republican party.29 After a long delay, Dewey was "reluctantly designated" by the Democratic Governor.30 Driven by ambition, Dewey pushed his staff relentlessly, searched for a case "that would bring glory to his investigation," and in the process incited Mayor La Guardia to fits of jealousy. Ultimately, however, Dewey brought down bootlegger Waxey Gordon, various mafia loan sharks, and Lucky Luciano, feats which no other New York prosecutor had even dared.31 Republican Dewey's prosecutorial fame later helped him become Governor of New York, and he made three unsuccessful runs for the Presidency, losing narrowly to President Truman in the 1948 presidential election.
For a more detailed discussion of the factual and procedural background of this case, see Starr II, 986 F.Supp. 1159, 1164-66 (E.D.Ark.1997) (Eisele, J., dissenting); id, 986 F.Supp. 1144, 1145-47 (E.D.Ark.1997) (Starr I)
On May 30, 1997, the district court filed a slip opinion ordering briefing on the question of Mandanici's standing. In re Starr, No. LR-M-97-91 (E.D.Ark. May 30, 1997) (slip op.)
Judge Moody recused himself at the outset of the Mandanici II litigation. See Starr I, 986 F.Supp. at 1155. His recusal was confirmed by the district court's August 1, 1997 opinion. Id. at 1144, 1155
The DOJ analyzed the RTC allegations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 596, which imposes the strict standard of "good cause," and determined that there was no basis for removal. Indeed, Congress has made clear that the removal power should not be applied to penalize minor or technical violations of ethical or other duties. See J.A. at 247 (Letter from Michael E. Shaheen, Jr. to Chief Judge Reasoner dated Feb. 7, 1997 (citing S.Rep. No. 496, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (July 14, 1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3537, 3553 ("[W]e stress that the Attorney General should use his [or her] removal power in only extreme, necessary cases...."))). Further, the DOJ opined that "apart from the context of removal," the DOJ could not properly "address any allegations that [ ] Starr has a conflict of interest. An independent counsel is subject to discipline by the Department of Justice only through the statutory removal mechanism." J.A. at 252 (Letter from Michael E. Shaheen, Jr. to Chief Judge Reasoner dated May 21, 1997 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 594(i) (each independent counsel is separate and independent of the DOJ for purposes of enforcing criminal conflict of interest laws))). The DOJ expressly refrained from suggesting whether Mandanici's allegations warranted further review by the district court and informed the court that it "did not gather any additional facts bearing on the issues before [the district] court." Id. at 253.
Judges Eisele, Roy, Woods, and Wilson. Chief Judge Reasoner and Judges Howard and Wright opined that Mandanici lacked standing to submit his ethics grievance to the court because "Mandanici is an interloper out to manipulate the Court for his political purposes and ... his efforts constitute a political vendetta." Starr I, 986 F.Supp. at 1148. In addition, they point out that Mandanici has no personal interest in the matters that Starr is investigating as Independent Counsel. Id
The district court reasoned that it should "be able to adapt [local rules] to unforeseen circumstances," and that inflexibility in reading Rule V(A) could lead to "unreasonable, unfair, and unwise results when viewed in light of the overall purposes" of the disciplinary rules. Starr I, 986 F.Supp. at 1149. The district court further stated that reading a mandatory referral into Rule V(A) would be inconsistent with the district court's practice since it adopted the Model Rules over 20 years ago. See id
"[T]he words of a rule are intended to communicate a meaning to those to whom they are addressed, rather than to carry some gloss, hidden in the minds of the judges who drafted the rule." 12 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3153 (2d ed.1997). The word "shall" has consistently been held to create an imperative or command. See, e.g., Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, --- U.S. ----, ----, 118 S.Ct. 956, 962, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998) (Lexecon) (observing that, as a statutory term, " 'shall' ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion") (citing Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 485, 67 S.Ct. 428, 91 L.Ed. 436 (1947); Stanfield v. Swenson, 381 F.2d 755, 757 (8th Cir.1967) ("When used in the statutes the word 'shall' is generally regarded as an imperative or mandatory and therefore one which must be given a compulsory meaning."). Where, as here, the meaning of the rule is clear from its language, no further inquiry is required. Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 476, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 120 L.Ed.2d 379 (1992) ("[C]ourts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written."); United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.1997) ("If the meaning of the rule is perfectly plain from its language, that ends the inquiry.")). Rule V(A) thus plainly requires the district court to refer allegations of misconduct to counsel for investigation and prosecution.
This conclusion is not inconsistent with the rule of this and other courts that district courts should be accorded great deference in interpreting their own rules. Indeed, other appellate courts have noted that a district court's inherent power to discipline attorneys who practice before it does not absolve the court from its obligation to follow the rules it created to implement its exercise of such power. Matter of Thalheim, 853 F.2d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1988); Matter of Abrams, 521 F.2d 1094, 1104 (3d Cir.1975); cf. Congregation of the Passion v. Touche, Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 219, 223 (7th Cir.1988) (noting that, despite considerable discretion given to district courts in interpreting their local rules, courts of appeal will reverse a district court's construction of its own rule whenever the district court has clearly misconstrued the rule); 12 Federal Practice and Procedure § 3153 (same). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the plain command of a statute should be given effect "even if doing that will reverse the longstanding practice under the statute and the rule." Lexecon, --- U.S. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 962 (citation omitted); see also Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 122, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994) ("Age is no antidote to clear inconsistency with a statute.").
Starr I, 986 F.Supp. at 1157.
Judge Eisele argued that Mandanici's allegations, if true, demonstrate that Starr suffered under at least an appearance of conflict with respect to the Pepperdine-Scaife issue, thereby triggering the district court's duty to refer the matter for investigation under Rule V(A). See Starr II, 986 F.Supp. at 1166, 1168 (Eisele, J., dissenting) ("It is my opinion that the Court has not only the legal authority but also the institutional duty to inquire into the Pepperdine-Scaife issue."). Specifically, Judge Eisele noted that, in refusing to address the substance of Mandanici's allegations, the majority incorrectly assumed that specific evidence of misconduct was required to establish an appearance of conflict. Id. at 1166-67. The majority wrote:
Judge Eisele also challenged the majority's emphasis on Mandanici's "vendetta" against Starr and asserts that these concerns should have been put aside in favor of an objective analysis of the merits of Mandanici's allegations. See id. at 1167. Finally, Judge Eisele criticized the majority's reliance upon the DOJ's investigation as strong support for its conclusion that Mandanici's allegations do not warrant referral. See id. As the majority acknowledged, the DOJ expressly stated that it takes "no position on whether the Court should exercise its discretionary authority to review [the Mandanici allegations] or to take any action if it does so," J.A. at 198 (Response by the Attorney General to Motion to Dismiss at 16), and that its decision not to investigate the Pepperdine-Scaife allegation was based on "the high threshold for triggering an investigation where the issue is the use of the Attorney General's removal power under 28 U.S.C. § 596(a)(1)." Id. at 261 (Letter from Michael Shaheen, Jr. to Judge Eisele of Aug. 8, 1997). Judge Eisele contended that, because the DOJ employed a "very high threshold" for purposes of removal, the DOJ's analysis is of limited applicability to the majority's determination whether to impose lesser sanctions, particularly where the majority did not address the allegations (and supporting evidence) regarding Starr's apparent conflict of interest. Starr II, 986 F.Supp. at 1167.
Contrary to Judge Loken's concurrence, neither Judge Eisele nor the author asserts that the Pepperdine-Scaife issue amounts to "an apparent political conflict of interest." Infra, at 752 (concurring in judgment) (emphasis in original). Indeed, Judge Eisele clearly stated: "The alleged Pepperdine-Scaife conflict that I have identified has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Starr's political views. Rather, it puts Mr. Starr's personal, financial, and career interests in possible conflict with his duty as independent counsel to exercise his prosecutorial power and discretion fairly and even-handedly." Starr II, 986 F.Supp. at 1167 (Eisele, J., dissenting). Likewise, the author opines that, if true, the Pepperdine-Scaife allegations create the appearance of a personal conflict of interest as defined in 28 C.F.R. § 45.2(b)(2) (1998) (defining "personal relationship" as "a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality"). Moreover, there is nothing in the express language of the Independent Counsel Act, 28 U.S.C. § 594, or 28 U.S.C. § 528 (providing for the disqualification of officers and employees of the DOJ in the event of an actual or apparent personal, financial, or political conflict of interest), that would prohibit the district court from enforcing the ethical standards contained in its local rules against federal prosecutors, including independent counsel, qua members of the bar. See also J.A. at 189 (Response by the Attorney General to Motion to Dismiss at 7) ("[W]e are not aware of any evidence that Congress meant in the Ethics in Government Act, or any other statute, to interfere with [the district court's] traditional power ... to supervise the ethical conduct of attorneys, including those representing the United States, appearing before it."); cf. Whitehouse v. United States District Court, 53 F.3d 1349, 1357 (1st Cir.1995) (recognizing district court's authority to regulate prosecutorial conduct); United States v. Klubock, 832 F.2d 664 (1st Cir.1987) (en banc) (upholding constitutionality of local rule regulating prosecutorial conduct); United States v. Johnston, 690 F.2d 638 (7th Cir.1982) (applying attorney-witness conflicts rule to federal prosecutors); United States v. Splain, 545 F.2d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir.1976) (noting that prosecutor's unprofessional conduct may subject him or her to disciplinary sanctions). More important, however, is the district court's failure to engage in the manner of analysis that Judge Loken sets forth, infra, at 752-53, to determine whether the appearance of a conflict (personal or otherwise) exists under federal conflict-of-interest laws. As noted above, it is this abandonment by the district court of its obligation to analyze the merits of Mandanici's allegations pursuant to Rule V(A) with which the author finds fault.
On June 19, 1997, Mandanici filed a third grievance alleging additional ethical violations by Starr concerning grand jury leaks and prejudicial comments to the press (hereinafter "Mandanici III"). The district court dismissed this grievance in its order dated October 2, 1997. See Starr II, 986 F.Supp. at 1161-62. Mandanici does not appeal the district court's dismissal of the allegations set forth in Mandanici III
The district court wrote: "For purposes of addressing [ ] Mandanici's allegations, the Court will assume that it has jurisdiction over ethics claims involving the Independent Counsel and that [ ] Mandanici has standing under our Model Rules to pursue his claim." Starr II, 986 F.Supp. at 1160 (footnote omitted)
In light of the serious nature of the underlying allegations in Mattice, this court went further to determine whether they had any factual support and found none. See Mattice v. Meyer, 353 F.2d 316, 319 (8th Cir.1965)
This court's reasoning in Mattice has been cited with approval in a variety of actions in which an individual has sought suspension or other disciplinary action against an attorney. See Ramos Colon v. United States Attorney for the Dist. of P.R., 576 F.2d 1, 6, 9 (1st Cir.1978) ("A private party cannot challenge the court's decision not to discipline.... It remains for the court to vindicate its authority, if it so chooses."); Application of Phillips, 510 F.2d 126, 127 (2d Cir.1975) (per curiam) ("[A] private person or a lawyer has no standing to participate in a disciplinary proceeding."); see also In re Echeles, 430 F.2d 347, 350 (7th Cir.1970) (holding that United States had no standing to appeal the result of a disbarment proceeding where nothing in record indicated that it had an interest in the matter or was a party to the underlying suit); In re Teitelbaum, 253 F.2d 1, 2 (7th Cir.1958) (holding that a complainant has no standing "as a party or otherwise" to appeal)
Rule 8.3 requires that "[a] lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules ... that raises a ... question as to that lawyer's honesty ... inform the appropriate professional authority." Ark. R. Prof. Cond. 8.3
Mandanici finds support for his argument in Judge Eisele's statement that "the Pepperdine allegations suggest the type of conflict that is not waivable in that they concern not a particular conflicted client but the integrity of prosecutorial decisionmaking in which every inhabitant of this land has a vital interest." See Starr I, 986 F.Supp. at 1153 (emphasis added)
The only cases that Mandanici cites for the proposition that he has standing are state cases, which not only do not bind this court, but also do not support Mandanici's theory of "citizen standing." See Brief for Appellant at 25-26. Rather, these cases and the treatises and professional rules that Mandanici cites on this issue merely acknowledge the vital role that citizens and third parties play in disciplinary proceedings by filing complaints and the standing of those persons to bring forth a such complaints. Id. (citing Ark. R. Prof. Cond. 8.1 ("[A] disciplinary proceeding may be initiated by [bar] counsel upon complaint of another person or entity."), 8.3). These sources do not decide whether a plaintiff has standing in federal court to compel disciplinary proceedings or referral for investigation and prosecution