2022 Investigative Summary 7

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION OF DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING RECUSAL

OPR received a report that a senior Department official had been actively involved in cases from which he had been officially recused.  The senior Department official allegedly required attorneys handling matters on which he had been recused to brief him on the status of those matters, made comments to the attorneys about his desired handling of such matters, and listened to telephone conferences regarding recusal matters.  The senior Department official allegedly acted through other senior managers, who purportedly secretly shared information with the senior Department official about recusal cases and acted on his behalf in those cases to maintain the appearance of a recusal.

Based on the results of its investigation, OPR concluded that the senior Department official engaged in intentional and reckless misconduct by requesting and receiving briefings about recusal cases.  The senior Department official believed he was prohibited only from making decisions about recusal cases and that to function properly as the office’s senior leadership official, he was entitled to limited information about recusal cases necessary to maintain situational awareness. However, Department policy, as articulated in various documents the senior Department official had received at the outset of his tenure, made clear that he was prohibited from receiving any briefings or information about recusal matters, and this policy had been brought to his attention by one of his senior managers.  In addition, on several occasions, the senior Department official communicated his opinion about recusal matters to the attorneys handling those matters, in violation of Department policy and of the ethics pledge that he had signed upon his appointment. OPR did not find that any of the senior managers engaged in misconduct but concluded that one of them exhibited poor judgment when he failed to take available steps to address his supervisor’s misconduct and that another senior manager exhibited poor judgment by failing to timely read Department policy documents to ensure he understood and that the office complied with the recusal policy.  OPR referred its findings to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit, which subsequently affirmed OPR’s findings and conclusions.