2024 Investigative Summary 3

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED MATERIALS

A U.S. Attorney’s Office informed OPR of an Assistant U.S. Attorney’s (AUSA) mishandling and improper disclosure of a number of defendants’ attorney-client privileged emails.  During a criminal investigation, the government, pursuant to a search warrant, obtained voluminous emails related to email accounts associated with various targets of the investigation.  Although the AUSA was aware that certain targets of the investigation were represented by counsel in a parallel civil investigation and expected that the search warrant return included emails to and from attorneys, he failed to establish a filter review team to identify and segregate attorney-client privileged communications.  After obtaining an indictment charging multiple defendants with conspiracy and related offenses, the AUSA disclosed in discovery all the emails obtained through the search warrant to all of the codefendants.  Because the attorney-client emails had not been identified and sequestered, the discovery included attorney-client privileged communications to attorneys and defendants who were not the holder of the privilege.  After being informed by an attorney representing one of the defendants that the discovery included attorney-client privileged communications, the AUSA failed to promptly notify other defense counsel or seek a return of the discovery.  In subsequent litigation concerning the improper disclosure, the government conceded that the discovery contained attorney-client privileged communications and moved to dismiss the case without prejudice, which the court granted.  The AUSA resigned from the Department during the course of OPR’s investigation.

OPR found that the AUSA engaged in a pattern of repeated neglect that was detrimental and consequential to the case and violated his professional obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, the United States, and to not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.  OPR concluded that the AUSA’s pattern of repeated neglect manifested a reckless disregard for his professional obligations under the rules.  The matter is pending before the Professional Misconduct Review Unit.