{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "204-3",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 10 of 348\ninvestigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department attorney's alleged professional misconduct.\nIn its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that (1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.10\nIV. ISSUES CONSIDERED\nIn this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report.\nA. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA\nIn evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR considered whether any of the NPA's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants\n9 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases.\n10 In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the then-pending CVRA litigation.\nviii DOJ-OGR-00003186",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 10 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department attorney's alleged professional misconduct.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that (1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.10",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR considered whether any of the NPA's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the then-pending CVRA litigation.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "viii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003186",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department",
      "OPR",
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "December 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003186"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the investigation of professional misconduct by Department attorneys. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 10 of 348."
}