About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-130441 1 (1978-05-08)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadsjm0001 and id is 1 raw text is: COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED Sr-ATIES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 MAY B-130441 The Honorable James Abourezk Chairman, Subcommittee on Adminis- trative Practice and Procedure Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of April 2 7, 1978, in which you seek further clarification of our opinion, B-130441, April 12, 1978. concerning the authority of the Depatiment of Justice to retain upervised private counsel to represent Government ea-ployees in civil suits brought against them in their individual capacities. You state your view that the legislative history of 28 U. S. C. 55 515(b) and 543 shows that whenever the Attorney General is protecting the interests of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §S 515-817, by hiring private counsel, Congress intended that such hiring rmust be in tompliance with the reqairements of sections 515(b) --43. You then reason that because we hold that the requirements of sections 515(b) and 543 need not be followed in cases involving Government employees sued in their individual capacities. (arising out of conduct performed within the scope of their employment) that it is our position that no '516-517 intereat is involved in such cases. Based upon this belief, you raise several legal arguments and questions and ask that we clarify our position by responding to thera. Alternatively, in the event your understanding of our Opinion is not accurate (and we have found that the interest involved in these suits can be classified as a section 516-17 interest), you request that we explain the basis for the Attorney General's authority to retain independent private counsel in light of certain provisions of sections 516 and 517 and section 17 of the Judicial Department Act as you construe thes, and in light of your view of an explanation by our Deputy General Counsel MNir. Milton Soclar that GAO had found no such authority to exist. Ve do not hold that the interest involved in th.e suits at issue cannot be classified as a section 51-517 interest. is our view, as stated on page 3 of our April 12 opinion, that the United States is interested within the meaning of 26 U.S. C. $ 51$ and 517 in suits *Eought against Government tnployees in their individual capacities resulting from conduct performed with n the scope of their employment. (See also page 2 of our explanatory. letter of April 24, 197$, to you. )

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most