28 C.F.R. § 0.39
Office of Professional Responsibility
The Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ-OPR) shall be headed by a Counsel, who shall be appointed by the Attorney General and subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General or, whenever appropriate, the Deputy Attorney General.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983).
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983). “, 28 CFR § 0.39 et seq. (1982). The Government informs us that during the year 1980, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility investigated 28 complaints of unethical conduct and that one Assistant United States Attorney resigned in the face of an…”
Bartko v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 898 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “]" 28 C.F.R. § 0.39 (a) (2001). If OPR's investigation concluded that the attorney's conduct "appear[ed] to involve a violation of law," OPR would refer the matter to the agency with jurisdiction to investigate and bring charges.”
Jane Doe v. United States Dep't of Just., 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “The regulations creating the Department’s OPR, 28 C.F.R. § 0.39 (1984), provide that the OPR shall “[rjeceive and review any information or allegation concerning conduct by a Department employee that may be in violation of law, regulations or orders, or of applicable standards…”
McPeek v. Ashcroft, 202 F.R.D. 332 (D.D.C. 2001). “” In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d at 272. To achieve this end, a number of factors must be considered, including: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact upon persons who…”
Boatwright v. State, 452 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “, 28 CFR 0.39 et seq. The Government informs us that in the last three years, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility has investigated 28 complaints of unethical conduct and that one assistant United States attorney resigned in the face of an…”
United States v. Burnside, 824 F. Supp. 1215 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “An investigation conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice, see 28 C.F.R. § 0.39 et seq. (1992) has commenced into the facts shown by the post-trial evidence.”
Dobyns v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 289 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “By separate order, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this opinion upon the Attorney General of the United States, the Office of Professional Responsibility for the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of…”
United States v. Ranger Elec. Commc'ns, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 667 (W.D. Mich. 1998). “Finally, the obligation of the Court to enforce its ethical standards in federal prosecutions requires this Court to order the Assistant United States Attorney involved to appear before this Court to show cause why the allegations made here should not be referred to the Office…”
Thelma F. Mead v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 687 F.2d 285 (9th Cir. 1982). “28 C.F.R. §§ 0.39 et seq. (1981). The OPR denied Mead’s request for relief on the ground that her allegations failed to establish that the Bureau’s actions were the result of any whistleblowing by Mead.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.