C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER VI—OFFICES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 600—GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

28 C.F.R. § 600.3

Qualifications of the Special Counsel

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1987–2018 · leading case: In Re Sealed Case
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Sealed Case (1987) cadc · cites it 4× “Compare 28 C.F.R. § 600.3 , 52 Fed.Reg. at 7272; with 28 U.”
United States v. Libby (2007) dcd · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 600.3 . It therefore has no application when an individual from within the Justice Department — someone who is already obligated to abide by internal Department policies — is delegated the authority to act as Special Counsel, as Fitzgerald clearly was.”
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1993) nysd · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 600.3 (a)(1). Even if dismissed, Judge Lacey is entitled to judicial review of the removal decision, and may obtain reinstatement or other appropriate relief.”
United States v. Manafort (2018) cadc “" 28 C.F.R. § 600.3 . According to section 600.”
United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC (2018) cadc “1977), it is particularly striking here because "shall" is used twice in the very same sub-provision, seven times in the same provision, and throughout the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 C.”
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1992) nysd · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 600.3 (a)(1). Even if dismissed, Judge Lacey is entitled to judicial review of the removal decision, and may obtain reinstatement or other appropriate relief.”
United States v. Manafort (2018) dcd “” 28 C.F.R. § 600.3 . According to section 600.”
United States v. Manafort (2018) dcd “” 28 C.F.R. § 600.3 . According to section 600.”
United States v. Concord Management and Consulting LLC (2018) dcd “1977), it is particularly striking here because “shall” is used twice in the very same sub-provision, seven times in the same provision, and throughout the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.3 , 600.4, 600.6, 600.7; see also Russello v.”
United States v. Concord Management and Consulting LLC (2018) dcd “1977), it is particularly striking here because “shall” is used twice in the very same sub-provision, seven times in the same provision, and throughout the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.3 , 600.4, 600.6, 600.7; see also Russello v.”
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.