Detail of Department of Justice Attorneys to Congressional Committees

May 16, 1977 77-26 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TASK FORCE ON CRIMINAL CODE REVISION Detail of Department of Justice Attorneys to Congressional Committees You have requested the opinion of this Office regarding the legality and ethical propriety of “loaning” one or more attorneys employed by the Departm ent of Justice to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee in connection with that subcommittee’s work on the proposed revision to the Federal Criminal Code. You state that this work is expected to take about 18 months to complete. We conclude that such an arrangement would be legal, but that it raises potential ethical problems that should be addressed carefully by those concerned, assuming that the Department is otherwise favorably dis­ posed on the anticipated request from the subcommittee. The legality of such an arrangement has previously been considered by this Office with regard to the detailing of an Assistant United States Attorney to a House committee. It was concluded that 2 U.S.C. § 72a(0* operates as affirmative authorization for the type of detailing involved here. Responding to your question concerning the ethical propriety, we have the following comments: Assuming that an attorney so detailed would continue to be paid by the Departm ent o f Justice and that he would expect to return to duty in the Departm ent at the conclusion of his work for the subcommittee, it is reasonable to suppose that he would, in his work on the Code revision, tend to advance the position taken by the Department on that 1T h a t provision states: N o com m ittee shall appoint to its staff any experts o r other personnel detailed or assigned from any departm ent o r agency o f the G overnm ent, except w ith the w ritten perm ission o f the Com mittee on Rules and A dm inistration o f the Senate o r the C om m ittee on House A dm inistration o f the H ouse o f Representatives, as the case m ay be. 108 revision. Thus, Canon 7 of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility is implicated in that the attorney may not be able adequately to represent the interests of both the Department and the subcommittee. Although the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically EC 7-16, distinguishes between the role of a lawyer in the legislative process and his role in representing the interests of his client in an adjudicatory process, it may be that the continuing duty owed to the Department by a Department attorney “loaned” to the subcommit­ tee might place that attorney in a difficult position if the interests of the subcommittee and those of the Department w ere'adverse in any given situation. This problem suggests yet another question—who is the attorney’s client, the Department or the subcommittee? If the client is the subcom­ mittee, then the attorney’s ability properly to represent his client’s interests may be, as shown above, drawn into question. Also, if the subcommittee is the client, the possibility that the attorney will have to draw upon information received by him in confidence in connection with his employment in the Department is great, implicating Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is true that under DR 5-105(c) and DR 4—101(c)(1) a lawyer may continue to represent multiple clients and may disclose otherwise confi­ dential information so long as there is full disclosure to all clients and consent by them to his actions. We think that such consent to the proposed arrangement should be worked out in advance if the detailed attorney is to have the subcommittee as his client. If the attorney were instead to be viewed as counsel for the Department detailed by the Attorney General to work with, rather than for, the subcommittee on the Code revision, the ethical problem would, in our view, no longer exist. John M. H arm on Acting Assistant Attorney General Office o f Legal Counsel 109