The Attorney General established OPR in December 1975 as a response to the ethical abuses and misconduct that DOJ officials committed during the Watergate scandal to ensure that department employees perform their duties in accordance with professional standards. OPR’s mission is to hold accountable department attorneys, and law enforcement agents who work with those attorneys, who abuse their power or otherwise violate the ethical standards required of them by law. OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of professional misconduct when the allegations relate to the exercise of the attorney’s authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice. OPR is headed by a Counsel who is a career Senior Executive Service member who reports to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 and 26.2, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (the Jencks Act), Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) establish the discovery obligations of federal prosecutors. According to DOJ policy, it is the obligation of federal prosecutors, in preparing for trial, to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all members of the prosecution team to ensure that the defendant has a fair trial. The prosecution team includes, among other others, federal, state, and local law enforcement officers participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant. evaluate whether the misconduct at issue is serious, and if so, report it to the appropriate office in DOJ. OPR receives complaints of professional misconduct from a variety of sources, including judicial opinions and referrals, private individuals and attorneys, DOJ employees, and other federal agencies. OPR is to review each complaint, and assess whether an attorney engaged in professional misconduct. If an attorney is found to have engaged in misconduct, OPR is to refer its findings to PMRU or the attorney’s component head to consider disciplinary action. Attorneys who are found to have engaged in misconduct can appeal disciplinary decisions, or submit grievances, to their component head, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) depending on the component for which they work and the type and length of the discipline imposed. Figure 1 shows DOJ’s process for managing and disciplining professional misconduct. Inquiry. OPR initiates an inquiry when it needs more information to resolve the complaint. In such cases, OPR is to request a written response to the allegations and supporting documentation—such as documents or e-mail records regarding the underlying allegation of misconduct and the attorney’s professional background and experience, among other things—from the attorney who is the subject of a complaint and the component head. OPR may also collect documents and e-mail records, and review case files and court pleadings. Investigations. In cases that cannot be resolved based on a review of the written record, OPR is to initiate an investigation of the alleged misconduct. This includes requesting and reviewing additional relevant documents and conducting interviews of the subject attorney(s) and witnesses. OPR makes findings of professional misconduct only after conducting a full investigation. Discipline. When OPR determines an attorney has engaged in misconduct, OPR provides a written report of its findings and conclusions to PMRU or the attorney’s respective component management for disciplinary action. PMRU is to review OPR’s findings to determine if OPR’s evidence is sufficient to support a finding of misconduct. If PMRU decides to reduce OPR’s findings of misconduct to poor judgment, it is to refer its decision to the attorney’s component management for discipline. Component management may ask the Office of the Deputy Attorney General for the authority to reject OPR’s findings if management disagrees with the findings. However, component management must uphold OPR’s findings if the Office of the Deputy Attorney General denies its request. For instances in which OPR found the attorney to have engaged in poor judgment, OPR is to refer its findings to the attorney’s component management to determine whether discipline is appropriate. Impose discipline. If it is determined by PMRU, component management, or the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM) that an attorney engaged in misconduct, component management is responsible for implementing the discipline decided. For attorneys within USAOs and the Criminal Division, PMRU is the Because PMRU speaks proposing and deciding disciplinary office.for the department on such matters, the two components are not at liberty to disagree with PMRU’s decision. For attorneys in other DOJ components, component managers, who handle these matters as only one of their many assigned responsibilities, are the proposing and deciding officials for admonishments, reprimands, and suspensions of 14 days or less. For suspensions of 15 days or more, demotions, and removals, component management is the proposing official and OARM is the deciding official. Component management may disagree with OPR’s findings, but only with the approval of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. Grievance or appeal. USAO and Criminal Division attorneys who are found to have engaged in misconduct can grieve PMRU’s decision to the Deputy Attorney General for findings in which PMRU imposed a suspension for 14 days or less. For findings in which PMRU imposed a suspension for 15 days or more, these attorneys may appeal to MSPB. Attorneys within other DOJ components who are found by component management or OARM to have engaged in misconduct can submit grievances for suspensions imposed for 14 days or less to a higher level official in their component, and for 15 days or more to MSBP. OPR uses its Analytical Framework to determine whether an attorney engaged in misconduct, and DOJ employees may refer to OPR’s Analytical Framework when determining whether an action constitutes misconduct. Under the Analytical Framework, OPR finds department attorneys engage in professional misconduct when they intentionally violate or act in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule of professional conduct, or department regulation or policy. Under the framework, attorneys can also be found to have exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct, made a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. The Privacy Act places limitations on the disclosure of specific findings of professional misconduct and other information that OPR maintains about these cases, such as the name of the attorney found to have engaged in misconduct. OPR, however, discloses summary-level information on its findings in its Annual Report, including descriptions of investigations it closed and its resolution of the matter, without identifying the subject of its investigation. Historically, Members of Congress and other third-party stakeholders, such as the American Bar Association, have stated that they believe that DOJ’s processes for investigating and disciplining professional misconduct are not transparent and prevent attorneys from being held publically accountable for their actions. These long-standing concerns have prompted some Members of Congress to publically call for allowing DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to investigate allegations of professional misconduct so as to better ensure that the public is provided sufficient information on attorney behavior. Currently, in accordance with statute, DOJ’s OIG does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints of professional misconduct against DOJ attorneys, including complaints against the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and other senior department attorneys; the OIG may otherwise conduct audits and investigations it considers appropriate, including regarding OPR. However, the OIG has partnered with OPR in a few instances to investigate the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and other high-ranking DOJ officials in professional misconduct investigations because of overlapping issues involving both OIG’s and OPR’s jurisdictions. Legislation that would allow the OIG to investigate professional misconduct complaints has been introduced on numerous occasions, with the most recent legislation introduced in March 2014. General testified in April 2014 before Congress that he does not support any action that would put misconduct investigations under the OIG’s jurisdiction because he believes that OPR has unique expertise for looking at complaints of misconduct and, where appropriate, recommending punishment. On the other hand, the current DOJ Inspector General has criticized the different treatment related to professional misconduct that department attorneys receive from OPR’s oversight, noting that investigating attorneys differently from other department employees has a detrimental effect on public confidence in DOJ’s ability to review its own attorneys’ misconduct. The DOJ Inspector General has also testified in support of OIG jurisdiction over professional misconduct investigations, stating that OIG’s statutory and operational independence from DOJ ensures that OIG investigations occur through a transparent and publicly accountable process. In 1994, GAO issued a legal opinion stating that GAO does not believe an OIG is institutionally less capable of reviewing matters that pertain to discretionary legal judgments, provided the OIG has the necessary experience and expertise to do so. E.g., S. 2127, 113th Cong. (2014); H.R. 3847, 111th Cong. (2009); S. 2324, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 9238, 110th Cong. (2007). Other stakeholders have raised concerns about the transparency of OPR’s misconduct investigations. For example, in August 2010, the American Bar Association called on DOJ to release information on completed professional misconduct investigations to give the public confidence that lawyers engaged in serious misconduct are held accountable and to educate the public about the type of complaints that often are made that are unwarranted. Additionally, in March 2013, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys called on OPR to make its findings of misconduct inquiries and investigations more accessible and available to Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The Association believes that doing so will allow Assistant U.S. Attorneys to better ensure due process in OPR investigations. However, OPR’s position is that it is prohibited under the Privacy Act from releasing specific information related to its investigations—such as the name of the accused attorney— unless otherwise identified by the act’s routine-use clause.