(a) The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that its attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest ethical standards. The purpose of this part is to implement 28 U.S.C. 530B and to provide guidance to attorneys concerning the requirements imposed on Department attorneys by 28 U.S.C. 530B.
(b) Section 530B requires Department attorneys to comply with state and local federal court rules of professional responsibility, but should not be construed in any way to alter federal substantive, procedural, or evidentiary law or to interfere with the Attorney General's authority to send Department attorneys into any court in the United States.
(c) Section 530B imposes on Department attorneys the same rules of professional responsibility that apply to non-Department attorneys, but should not be construed to impose greater burdens on Department attorneys than those on non-Department attorneys or to alter rules of professional responsibility that expressly exempt government attorneys from their application.
(d) The regulations set forth in this part seek to provide guidance to Department attorneys in determining the rules with which such attorneys should comply.
Notes of Decisions
Watkins v. Trans Union, LLC, 869 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 2017).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 77.1 (b). . We have observed that district courts may construe their own local rules.”
United States v. Lopez-Avila, 678 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 77.1 (b). Lopez-Avila gives no reason why this regulation is invalid or does not apply to this case.”
United States v. Kentrevion Watkins, 107 F.4th 607 (7th Cir. 2024).
“§ 530B(a); 28 C.F.R. § 77.1 (b). The de- fendants’ contention that the district court should have dis- qualified Hanna are unpersuasive.”
United States v. Syling, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (D. Haw. 2008).
“rules of professional responsibility, but *1193 should not be construed in any way to alter federal substantive, procedural, or evidentiary law_” 28 C.F.R. § 77.1 (b). Other courts have also concluded that § 530B does not alter substantive federal standards.”
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, 533 F. Supp. 2d 602 (W.D.N.C. 2007).
“Similarly, the implementing regulations to the McDade Act 12 — which is a federal statute that holds federal prosecutors accountable to the ethical rules of the state in which they practice — provide that the Act “should not be construed in any way to alter federal substantive,…”
United States v. Lopez-Avila, 666 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2012).
“" 28 C.F.R. § 77.1 (b). Lopez-Avila gives no reason why this regulation is invalid or does not apply to this case.”
United States v. Torieuanno White (7th Cir. 2024).
“§ 530B(a); 28 C.F.R. § 77.1 (b). The de- fendants’ contention that the district court should have dis- qualified Hanna are unpersuasive.”
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.