Opinion ID: 525194
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background of the ethics in government act

Text: 6 In 1978, Congress passed the original Ethics in Government Act. 2 The Act provided, upon request by the Attorney General, for a Special Division of the Court of Appeals 3 to appoint a special prosecutor (now independent counsel) for the purpose of avoiding the inherent appearance, if not actuality, of a conflict of interest produced by the Department of Justice investigating possible criminal violations allegedly committed by high officials in the Executive branch. The Act provided a mechanism for ensuring the appearance and actuality of an independent, impartial investigation and prosecution, if warranted, of allegations of high level misconduct in the Executive branch. The Act included a sunset provision, with a five year span. 7 The first investigation by a special prosecutor demonstrated some defects in the initial legislation. Specifically, Congress and others were troubled by 1) the procedure which led up to the Attorney General requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor and 2) the absence of reimbursement for attorneys' fees incurred by unindicted subjects of special prosecutor investigations. The Special Prosecutor's investigation of Hamilton Jordan provided an example of an allegation which would not have ordinarily been subject to federal investigation yet Jordan incurred attorneys' fees in excess of $100,000. In re Jordan, 745 F.2d 1574, 1576 (D.C.Cir.1984) (The allegation against Jordan was that he had used small amounts of cocaine.). 8 The Jordan case provided some impetus to the movement to amend the Ethics in Government Act. The Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, S.Rep. No. 496, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., (July 14, 1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 3537, addressed the issues of whether the Act should be extended beyond 1983 and what improvements should be made to the Act. As a result of these Hearings, Congress amended the Act by raising the standard for initiating the Justice Department's preliminary investigation of an allegation of criminal misconduct and referral to the Special Division for the appointment of an independent counsel through incorporating ordinary Department of Justice prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to pursue an allegation. Congress also provided for the reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees for the subject of an Independent Counsel investigation where the subject is not indicted and the fees would not have been incurred but for the requirements of the [Act]. 4 9 The 1983 amendments that raised the standards which triggered a preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice and referral to the Special Division for appointment of an independent counsel were designed to establish[ ] a standard administration of justice for officials and non-officials; thereby avoiding the unfairness ... [of] imposing a stricter application of the criminal law on public officials. S.Rep. No. 496, 97 Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 3551. 10 Before conducting a preliminary investigation, Sec. 592(a)(1) required the Attorney General to determine whether the allegation of criminal conduct was specific and credible. The 1978 Act [Sec. 592(a) ] had required the Department of Justice to conduct a preliminary investigation merely on receipt of specific information of criminal conduct by a covered official--thus prohibiting the Attorney General from taking into account the credibility of the source of the allegation when determining whether to undertake a preliminary investigation. Moreover, under the revised standard, the Senate Report directed the Attorney General to follow the usual practices of the Department of Justice in determining the reliability of a source. S.Rep. 97-496 at 12, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 3548. 11 Pursuant to the 1983 amendments, after completing a preliminary investigation, the Attorney General was required to request the appointment of an independent counsel only where reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation or prosecution is warranted exist. Sec. 592(c)(1). Section 592(c)(1) also compelled the Attorney General, when determining if such grounds exist, to comply with the written or other established policies of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations. 12 Prior to the 1983 amendments, the 1978 Act obliged the Attorney General to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor unless the allegation was so unsubstantiated that no further investigation is warranted. 5 Sec. 592(b)(1). In 1982, Congress found this standard to be far lower than the standard employed at this stage of investigation by other prosecutors across the country in both the federal and state court systems. S.Rep. 97-496 at 14 (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 3550. Congress, therefore, empowered the Attorney General, when determining whether to seek the appointment of an independent counsel, to exercise the reasonable discretion [that] is regularly practiced by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, and prosecutors throughout the federal system. Id. Congress intended the amended standard for appointing an independent counsel to remedy the problem of an uneven application of justice [which was caused] by triggering the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations which are not ordinarily prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Id. 13 Congress' decision to provide for the subject of an independent counsel investigation to be reimbursed for attorneys' fees incurred, in select situations, during the investigation also reflects an intent to protect the subject from an unequal application of justice. Section 593(f)(1) provides, in part: 14 Upon the request of an individual who is the subject of an investigation conducted by an independent counsel pursuant to this chapter, the division of the court may, if no indictment is brought against such individual pursuant to that investigation, award reimbursement for those reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by that individual during that investigation which would not have been incurred but for the requirements of this chapter. 15 28 U.S.C. Sec. 593(f)(1). 6 Inquiries into the awarding of attorneys' fees under the Act have focused on two elements: 1) whether the fees would have been incurred but for the Act and (2) whether such fees are reasonable. The legislative history indicates that the court should only award that portion of the [reasonable] fees, if any, which it determines would not have been incurred in the absence of the special prosecutor law. S.Rep. 97-496 at 18, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 3554.