The following sections address obligations of Department employees to report allegations of professional misconduct by Department attorneys (and related law enforcement misconduct) to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and obligations to report allegations of criminal wrongdoing or administrative misconduct by Department employees to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). These sections also address the procedures for making such reports.

Reporting an allegation raises no inference that the allegation is well-founded. If, after consulting the guidelines below, an employee is uncertain as to whether, or where, an allegation should be reported, the employee should consult with his or her supervisor, supporting legal office, OPR, or the OIG.

All Department employees have an obligation to cooperate with OPR and OIG misconduct investigations (28 C.F.R. § 45.13) and must respond truthfully to questions posed during the course of an investigation upon being informed that their statements will not be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. Employees who refuse to cooperate with OPR or OIG misconduct investigations after having been informed that their statements will not be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding may be subject to formal discipline, including removal. Employees are obligated to cooperate and respond truthfully even if their statements can be used against them in connection with employment matters.

All Department employees also have an obligation to cooperate with audits, inspections, evaluations, and reviews conducted by the OIG and to respond truthfully to questions posed during such matters. Interviews conducted in OIG audits, inspections, evaluations, and reviews are conducted as voluntary interviews because they do not typically involve allegations of criminal or administrative misconduct. Unless a Department employee articulates a “real and appreciable and not merely imaginary and unsubstantial” risk of incrimination, Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 48 (1968) (internal quotations and citations omitted), his or her cooperation in an OIG audit, inspection, evaluation, or review will be considered to be voluntary.

In certain limited situations, the above obligations regarding cooperation with OPR and OIG may not apply to Department attorneys who are representing other Department employees in their individual capacities pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. Under such circumstances, the representing attorneys are prohibited from disclosing in the course of an OPR or OIG investigation (or an OIG audit, inspection, or evaluation) information they possess regarding the represented employee that is protected by the attorney-client privilege unless the represented employee authorizes such disclosure (see 28 C.F.R. § 50.15(a)(3)). In those limited circumstances, a Department attorney who has a good-faith basis for asserting the attorney-client privilege over information requested by OPR or OIG will not face adverse consequences in employment matters for asserting that privilege.

As provided in USAM § 1-7.120, nothing in this Policy is intended to conflict with or limit whistleblower protections, such as those provided in 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302-2303 and applicable regulations. Rather, the provisions of this Policy “are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this [Policy] and are controlling.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13).

[updated September 2018]