2025 Investigative Summary 3

Investigation of Alleged Failure to keep Supervisors Reasonably Informed, Conflict of Interest, Lack of Candor, Failure to Report Judicial Misconduct to Supervisors, and Assisting in Judicial Misconduct

A United States Attorney’s Office notified OPR about the conduct of an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) regarding her allegedly unprofessional interactions with a federal judge before whom the AUSA handled cases.  OPR opened an inquiry and sent the AUSA a request for a written response, asking that she detail the nature of her relationship with the judge. In her response, the AUSA denied any improper interactions with the judge.  Because OPR’s inquiry did not reveal any witness with first-hand knowledge that the AUSA’s interactions with the judge were improper and because the AUSA denied that her interactions with the judge were improper, OPR closed its inquiry.  
At the time of OPR’s inquiry, the Judicial Council of a federal Court of Appeals (Judicial Council) was investigating allegations related to the judge’s interactions with law clerks.  In 2024, the Judicial Council released an order regarding the judge.  Although the gravamen of the order concerned the judge’s conduct toward the law clerks, the order noted that after initially lying about the issue, the judge ultimately admitted having had unprofessional interactions with an AUSA.  OPR reopened its inquiry and sent the AUSA a supplemental request for a written response.  The AUSA’s response differed materially from her initial response to OPR.  She did not dispute that she was the AUSA referenced in the order and admitted that she had sent nude photographs of herself to the judge and that they had exchanged unprofessional texts.  
OPR found that the AUSA committed intentional professional misconduct in violation of the applicable rules of professional conduct by (1) concealing her unprofessional interactions with the judge, thereby purposefully failing to keep her supervisors reasonably informed about her cases before the judge and about her conflict of interest; (2) intentionally continuing to represent the United States despite a conflict of interest and without obtaining her client’s informed consent; (3) intentionally misrepresenting to OPR and the Judicial Council investigators the actual nature of her interactions and the full scope of her relationship with the judge; (4) knowingly failing to report to her supervisors the judge’s violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (Judicial Code of Conduct); and (5) knowingly assisting the judge in violating the Judicial Code of Conduct.  OPR referred its misconduct findings to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit.