{
  "id": "RL30060",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30060",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105324,
      "date": "2001-12-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:18:05.621941",
      "title": "McDade-Murtha Amendment: Ethical Standards for Justice Department Attorneys",
      "summary": "The McDade-Murtha Amendment, 28 U.S.C.  530B, requires federal prosecutors to follow state\nand\nfederal rules of professional responsibility in effect in the states where they conduct their activities. \nIt also continues in place the sixty year old directive that federal prosecutors follow the ethics rules\npromulgated by the states in which they are licensed to practice. Proponents claim the change will\nconfirm that federal prosecutors must follow the same ethical rules as other lawyers and will enhance\nthe prospect of some protection against wayward federal prosecutors. Opponents charge that it will\nimplicitly undermine the Attorney General's authority to preempt state laws that conflict with federal\nlaw enforcement interests and that in doing so it will jeopardize the use of undercover techniques\nagainst terrorists, drug kingpins and child predators because of possible interpretations of the so-\ncalled no contact rule. \n  Under the no contact rule, accepted in virtually every American jurisdiction, a lawyer in\nrepresenting a client may \"not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the\nlawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent\nof the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.\" The rule was designed to prevent lawyers from\ntaking unfair advantage of their untutored opponents. \n  The Justice Department is troubled by judicial interpretations of the rule that indicate that it may\napply: (1) in criminal cases prior to arrest or indictment; (2) to federal prosecutors whose only contact\nis through informants, cooperative witnesses, undercover agents, or federal investigators; (3) even\nthough the represented client initiated the contact; or (4) to contacts with the employees or agents\nof an organizational target of a federal administrative and civil investigation. The courts have thus\nfar repudiated the efforts of the Department to craft an exception for federal prosecutors\nadministratively.\n  Similar concerns stimulated by rules covering the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the\n grand\njury and the use of grand jury subpoenas against attorneys seem to have been eased by internal\nguidelines and more favorable jurisprudence.\n  At its heart, the debate involves defining the ethical bounds within which Department of Justice\nattorneys must operate and deciding to whom that task should be assigned.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30060",
          "sha1": "5518b8be8601e7ad699089ca6fdee6eceb5ba97c",
          "filename": "files/20011218_RL30060_5518b8be8601e7ad699089ca6fdee6eceb5ba97c.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20011218_RL30060_5518b8be8601e7ad699089ca6fdee6eceb5ba97c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}