Content area
Full Text
INTRODUCTION
The McDade Amendment,1 which took its name from its chief sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives,2 was added to the omnibus appropriations measure for fiscal year 1999.3 The McDade Amendment subjects Department of Justice attorneys to the "state laws and rules, and local federal court rules,4 governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State."5 It has had a deleterious effect on federal criminal prosecutions, and it is no exaggeration to say that this provision is costing lives.
The law review articles that have been written since the passage of the McDade Amendment do not detail the everyday impact of the law, and then omit or understate its real-life implications.6 The articles speculate about the possible results that the Amendment may have. Some commentators have even suggested that the McDade Amendment is the "solution" for uniform application of American Bar Association ("ABA") Model Rule 4.2,7 the "anti-contact rule," which lies at the heart of the Amendment.8 While most commentators agree that the law is problematic,9 these generalities do not fully demonstrate the significant adverse impact that this law is having in slowing down, or bringing to a standstill, federal investigations of serious criminal wrongdoing, nor do they offer remedies other than amending or repealing the McDade Amendment, an attractive but uncertain solution.10
The Department of Justice represents law enforcement authority for the Executive Branch. It operates under federal law, not state law, prosecuting cases in federal courts. As such, prior to the McDade Amendment, Department attorneys were subject only to the ethics rules of their state of licensure (except to the extent that those rules impeded their legitimate law enforcement responsibilities), not of every jurisdiction in which they litigated. Subjecting federal prosecutors to differing state rules creates vertical (local-state-federal)11 and horizontal (state-state)12 conflicts of law that have had serious adverse consequences. The McDade Amendment was supposed to be the answer to the regulation of federal prosecutors, but that task is being pursued at the expense of legitimate law enforcement investigative techniques, practices, and operations by Department attorneys. Although subjecting federal attorneys to state bar rules sounds like a good policy in theory, the...