The principles set forth herein, and internal office procedures adopted pursuant hereto, are intended solely for the guidance of attorneys for the government. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party to litigation with the United States, including criminal defendants, targets or subjects of criminal investigations, witnesses in criminal or civil cases (including civil law enforcement proceedings), or plaintiffs or defendants in civil investigations or litigation; or any other person, whether or not a party to litigation with the United States, or their counsel; and shall not be a basis for dismissing criminal or civil charges or proceedings or for excluding relevant evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding. Nor are any limitations placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice as a result of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case:
In Re Telfair, 745 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D.N.J. 2010).
In Re Telfair, 745 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D.N.J. 2010).
· cites it 2× “They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party to litigation with the United States, including criminal defendants, targets or subjects of criminal investigations, witnesses in…”
United States v. Carona, 630 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2011).
“3d at 1138 (providing that Rule 2-100 “is a rule governing attorney conduct and the duties of attorneys, and does not create a right in a party not to be contacted by opposing counsel”); see also 28 C.F.R. § 77.5 (instructing that the procedures adopted to implement the McDade…”
United States v. Koerber, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Utah 2013).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 77.5 (2013). The court also uses them in this posture — as guidance to their interpretation, and not "to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural.”
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, 533 F. Supp. 2d 602 (W.D.N.C. 2007).
“Failure of an attorney for the United States to obtain Assistant Attorney General approval before causing a grand jury subpoena to be served or enforced does not necessarily mean the attorney violated Rule 3.8(e) and, as discussed above, does not provide a basis to quash a…”
United States v. Acosta, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Wis. 2000).
“See also 28 C.F.R. § 77.5 (providing that *1096 the government’s requiring its attorneys to comply with ethical rules does not create any right or benefit enforceable at law by adverse parties, including criminal defendants).”
Celli v. Ag Garland & the Ausa of Your District1 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 3× “The Department of Justice’s “resulting regulations[,] [namely 28 C.F.R. § 77.5 ,] . . . specify that they are not intended to create any independent right in the public enforceable by litigation against the Government.”
State v. Nash (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 77.5 (2019). CONCLUSION ¶19 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and Nash’s pro se supplemental brief and has searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none.”
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.