{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "161",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 161 of 349\ndifferent points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in formulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense negotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he returned. Villafaña and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions during the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's, Menchel's, Lourie's, and Villafaña's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta.\n\nUnder OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.202 In this regard, OPR's framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars, which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct with respect to any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval.\n\nIII. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA\n\nA central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of the subjects, in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, violated any clear and unambiguous standard established by rule, regulation, or policy. OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. OPR considered three specific areas: (1) standards implicated by the decision to decline a federal court prosecution; (2) standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a non-prosecution agreement; and (3) standards implicated by any of the NPA's provisions, including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. As discussed below, OPR concludes that in each area, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences, the U.S. Attorney possessed broad discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous standard. As a result, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and unambiguous standard.\n202 The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate attorney has not acted in \"good faith.\" OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here, and Acosta did not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision.\n\n134\nDOJ-OGR-00004458",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 161 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in formulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense negotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he returned. Villafaña and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions during the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's, Menchel's, Lourie's, and Villafaña's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.202 In this regard, OPR's framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars, which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct with respect to any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of the subjects, in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, violated any clear and unambiguous standard established by rule, regulation, or policy. OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. OPR considered three specific areas: (1) standards implicated by the decision to decline a federal court prosecution; (2) standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a non-prosecution agreement; and (3) standards implicated by any of the NPA's provisions, including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. As discussed below, OPR concludes that in each area, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences, the U.S. Attorney possessed broad discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous standard. As a result, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and unambiguous standard.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "202 The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate attorney has not acted in \"good faith.\" OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here, and Acosta did not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "134",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004458",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Menchel",
      "Sloman",
      "Villafaña",
      "Lourie",
      "Acosta"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "State Attorney's Office",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "August 3, 2007",
      "September 12, 2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004458"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving the U.S. Attorney's Office. The text discusses the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) investigation into the negotiation and approval of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}