Discipline. Attorneys. Furthermore, the Deputy Counsel reported that changes to  OPR’s intake process have reduced the amount of time it takes OPR to  initially assess the merit of a complaint from up to 90 days to  approximately 7 days. DOJ Does Not Ensure Discipline Is Implemented or Consistent and Some Attorneys Found to Have Engaged in Misconduct Receive Performance Awards

			Ensuring Discipline Is Implemented

DOJ does not require components to demonstrate that attorneys found to  have engaged in professional misconduct serve the discipline imposed  upon them. Consistent and Timely Discipline Decisions

DOJ has plans to help ensure consistent and timely decisions about  discipline for attorneys who OPR finds to have engaged in professional  misconduct, but has not yet implemented these plans.DOJ did not provide  GAO with reasons for why it has not yet taken action to implement these  changes. Supervisors Use Managerial Discretion as well as DOJ Guidance and Other Support when Assigning Work to, and Overseeing, Attorneys

Supervisors of attorneys accused of, or found to have engaged, in  professional misconduct use managerial discretion when determining  what work responsibilities they will assign to these attorneys and ensuring  that these attorneys are complying with professional standards. These respondents  reported that they assign work to attorneys on a case-by-case basis but  based on a variety of factors, including the following:
The nature of the alleged misconduct. For example, they  may not assign work responsibilities to attorneys accused of professional  misconduct any differently than other attorneys until they consult with  EOUSA’s General Counsel’s Office or component management. DOJ’s Policy Is Not to Provide Counsel for Its Attorneys for OPR Proceedings, but DOJ Paid $3.66 Million over 6 Years for Private Counsel Representation in Related Legal Proceedings

Under departmental policy, DOJ is not to authorize legal representation  for purposes of defending attorneys in proceedings that OPR conducts  because it is generally not in the interests of the United States to provide  federal employees with legal representation in internal agency   This policy also precludes legal  administrative investigations.representation to assist employees in preparing submissions to support  their defense in internal disciplinary investigations, or to represent  employees in agency disciplinary proceedings, including those that OPR  conducts. For example, according to DOJ, assuming that an  attorney’s request for representation meets the criteria set forth in DOJ’s  policy statement, DOJ could provide representation for a DOJ attorney  who is the subject of a state bar proceeding while that attorney is also the  subject of an OPR investigation related to the same conduct. However,  representation would be limited to the state bar proceeding, not for  defense in the OPR investigation. We determined that DOJ expended $3.66  million from fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for private counsel  representation for 38 DOJ attorneys, in headquarters or in an USAO,  involved in 18 legal proceedings where there were also related OPR  investigations. Furthermore, by  requiring that DOJ establish near-term milestones for expanding  PMRU’s jurisdiction to all department attorneys, DOJ can better  ensure that it is addressing violations of professional misconduct for  all department attorneys in a timely and consistent manner. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help provide Congress and the public with reasonable assurance that  attorneys found to have engaged in professional misconduct are  disciplined, and prevent delays in implementing this discipline, we  recommend that the Attorney General take the following two actions:  require components that impose discipline to demonstrate that they  actually implemented the discipline—similar to EOUSA’s requirement,  and establish near-term milestones that will hold the department  accountable for completing its goal to expand PMRU’s jurisdiction to  all department attorneys found by OPR to have engaged in  professional misconduct. 2. How do supervisors determine work responsibilities for attorneys  accused of, or who have been found to have engaged in, professional  misconduct? We also reviewed previous GAO and DOJ  Inspector General reports on DOJ’s processes for managing  professional misconduct and disciplining attorneys. We reviewed OPR complaint  data from fiscal years 2008 through 2013 in order to describe what, if any,  changes occurred in the number of complaints and the length of time to  complete inquiries and investigations since DOJ’s process for managing  complaints of professional misconduct changed in 2011.We reviewed  OPR complaint data from fiscal years 2008 through 2013 in order to  describe what, if any, changes occurred in the number of complaints and  the length of time to complete inquiries and investigations since DOJ’s  process for managing complaints of professional misconduct changed in  2011. We also interviewed  senior-level DOJ officials within OPR, PMRU, the Criminal Division, the  Executive Office for U.S. To address our second objective, we sent a questionnaire to 20 selected  U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) and 28 litigating sections within selected  DOJ components to collect information on the various types of policies  and procedures put in place to manage the work activities of attorneys  accused of or found to have engaged in professional misconduct.
Why GAO Did This Study

Instances of professional misconduct—such as a violation of an attorney’s responsibilities to be honest—among DOJ attorneys have called into question DOJ’s efforts to oversee attorney behavior, including its processes for investigating and disciplining misconduct complaints.
Congress mandated GAO to review DOJ's performance in disciplining attorneys. This report addresses (1) DOJ's processes to manage misconduct complaints; (2) how supervisors determine work responsibilities for attorneys accused of, or found to have engaged in, misconduct; and (3) DOJ's policies for paying for representation for attorneys investigated for misconduct. GAO reviewed DOJ regulatory obligations and policies, and legal representation costs from fiscal years 2008 through 2013. GAO also analyzed survey responses on assigning work responsibilities from 48 selected litigating sections. Responses are not generalizable, but provided helpful insights. GAO also interviewed DOJ officials who manage misconduct complaints.

What GAO Found

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made changes to improve its processes for managing complaints of attorney professional misconduct since 2011 but has not implemented plans to improve processes for demonstrating that discipline is implemented, or achieving timely and consistent discipline decisions. For example, GAO found that changes to the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) processes for assessing the merits of misconduct complaints reduced assessment time that took up to 90 days in 2008 to about 7 days in 2014. However, GAO found that DOJ does not require its components to demonstrate that attorneys have served the discipline imposed on them for misconduct. Ensuring that discipline is implemented helps hold attorneys accountable for violating professional standards and provides the public reasonable assurance that misconduct is being addressed. DOJ also has not implemented a change called for in a January 2011 memorandum from the Attorney General that would expand the purview of the Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU)--the unit that proposes and decides discipline for attorneys with findings of misconduct by OPR. With this change, PMRU would go from deciding discipline for attorneys with professional misconduct findings in U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAO) and the Criminal Division to all components. According to the Attorney General, this change could help reduce delays in implementing discipline and ensure consistent decisions about discipline. DOJ did not provide GAO with reasons for not making this change.
DOJ policy provides that supervisors of attorneys accused of, or found to have engaged in, professional misconduct can use discretion to determine what work to assign to these attorneys. DOJ also provides agency-wide guidance to supervisors, such as administrative directives and the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, that identify steps supervisors may take when dealing with attorneys accused of misconduct. Representatives for 12 of the 20 USAOs and 20 of the 28 litigating sections we surveyed reported that supervisors assign work on a case-by-case basis but consider factors, such as the nature of the alleged misconduct, in doing so. A smaller number of respondents reported that supervisors may assign work to such attorneys no differently than to other attorneys until the supervisors determine allegations have merit or professional misconduct is confirmed.
Under departmental policy, DOJ is not to authorize legal representation for attorneys in OPR proceedings, including representation to assist such attorneys in preparing submissions to support their defense. However, DOJ attorneys, like all federal employees, may be provided legal representation by DOJ for carrying out their duties, under certain circumstances. For example, DOJ may provide representation for an attorney whose conduct is the subject of a state bar proceeding while the attorney is also the subject of an OPR investigation related to the same conduct. The representation would cover defense for the state bar but not the OPR proceeding. As a result, from fiscal years 2008 through 2013, DOJ expended $3.66 million for private counsel representation for 38 DOJ attorneys involved in 18 legal proceedings where there were also related OPR investigations. DOJ found 12 attorneys within these investigations to have engaged in professional misconduct.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ (1) require components to demonstrate that they have implemented discipline for misconduct and (2) establish near-term milestones for expanding PMRU's jurisdiction to decide discipline for all attorneys with findings of misconduct.DOJ agreed with GAO's recommendations.