In re:Auerhahn, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 In re:Auerhahn, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 11- 2206

I N RE: J EFFREY AUERHAHN

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNI TED STATESDI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Ri ppl e* and Howar d,Ci r cui t J udges.

Nancy E. Kauf man, Fi r st Assi st ant Bar Counsel , Of f i ce of BarCounsel , f or appel l ant .

Pet er B. Kr upp, wi t h whom Max D. St er n was on br i ef , f orami cus cur i ae Massachuset t s Associ at i on of Cr i mi nal Def enseLawyer s, I nc. i n suppor t of appel l ant .

Mi chael D. Ri cci ut i , wi t h whomMi chael DeMar co, Ryan M. Tosi ,Li ndsay S. Bi shop, and K&L Gat es LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Vi j ay Shanker , At t or ney, Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce,wi t h whomLanny A. Br euer , Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , and J ohn D.Bur et t a, Act i ng Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wer e on br i ef ,f or ami cus cur i ae Uni t ed St at es i n suppor t of appel l ee.

Lawr ence J . Fox, J ohn Rei nst ei n, and Nancy Ger t ner on br i eff or ami ci cur i ae l egal academi cs i n suppor t of appel l ant .

J ul y 22, 2013

*Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/33

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Massachuset t s Bar Counsel ( "Bar

Counsel " ) appeal s a deci si on by a t hr ee- j udge panel of t he Uni t ed

St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s di smi ssi ng

Bar Counsel ' s pet i t i on f or di sci pl i nar y sanct i ons agai nst Assi st ant

Uni t ed St at es At t or ney J ef f r ey Auer hahn. We di smi ss t he appeal f or

l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on.

I. Background

Fol l owi ng t he r evel at i on t hat Auer hahn and ot her s had

wi t hhel d excul pat or y i nf or mat i on f r om t wo f eder al cr i mi nal

def endant s who were convi ct ed and ser ved subst ant i al t erms i n

pr i son, t he Massachuset t s di st r i ct cour t asked Bar Counsel t o

i nvest i gate Auerhahn' s conduct and r ecommend whether t o i ni t i ate

di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs. Bar Counsel di d so, and t he cour t

appoi nt ed a t hr ee- j udge panel ( t he "Panel " ) t o det er mi ne whet her t o

sanct i on Auerhahn. The Panel concl uded t hat Auerhahn had not

vi ol at ed any rul es of pr of essi onal conduct and decl i ned t o sanct i on

hi m. Bar Counsel appeal s on t he gr ounds t hat t he Panel abused i t s

di scret i on and i ncor r ect l y i nt er pr et ed t he appl i cabl e di sci pl i nar y

r ul es. We begi n wi t h an abr i dged ver si on of t he Panel ' s f i ndi ngs

of f act , whi ch ar e l ar gel y undi sput ed on appeal .

-2-


3/33

A. Investigation of Vincent Limoli's Murder

I n 1985, t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce hi r ed Auer hahn as a

speci al at t or ney assi gned t o t he Or gani zed Cr i me and Racket eer i ng

Sect i on of t he New Engl and St r i ke For ce ( "St r i ke For ce") . He

r emai ned wi t h t he St r i ke For ce unt i l 2005, when he was r eass i gned

t o anot her uni t i n t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney' s Of f i ce f or t he

Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s, wher e he r emai ns.

Among Auerhahn' s dut i es whi l e wi t h t he St r i ke For ce were

t he i nvest i gat i on and pr osecut i on of member s of t he Pat r i ar ca cr i me

f ami l y of La Cosa Nost r a, an or gani zed cr i mi nal ent er pr i se

oper at i ng i n, among ot her pl aces, Bost on' s Nort h End nei ghbor hood.

Ear l y i n hi s career wi t h t he St r i ke For ce, Auer hahn became t he l ead

at t or ney i n an i nvest i gat i on i nt o whet her Vi ncent Fer r ar a, a

"sol di er " i n La Cosa Nost r a, was i nvol ved i n t he 1985 mur der of

Vi ncent Li mol i , an associ at e i n a crew under Fer r ar a' s di r ect i on.

Auerhahn worked cl osel y wi t h Mart i n Col eman, a Bost on Pol i ce

Depar t ment det ect i ve, and Mi chael Buckl ey, an FBI speci al agent ,

who were both assi gned t o t he St r i ke For ce. Auerhahn al so worked

wi t h Gr egg Sul l i van, anot her Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney.

Li mol i was mur dered on Oct ober 28, 1985. Pasqual e Barone

and Wal t er J ordan, who worked f or Fer r ara, were both seen wi t h

Li mol i shor t l y bef or e hi s mur der , and bot h f l ed Bost on soon af t er

t he murder .

-3-


4/33

I n 1988, Fer r ar a was under i nvest i gat i on f or hi s

pot ent i al i nvol vement i n numerous mur der s. I n f ur t her ance of t he

i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hese mur der s, J or dan was ar r est ed on a mat er i al

wi t ness war r ant . Upon bei ng ar r est ed, J or dan qui ckl y began

cooper at i ng wi t h the gover nment and pr ovi ded the St r i ke For ce wi t h

i nf or mat i on on Fer r ar a, and on La Cosa Nost r a gener al l y. J or dan

ent ered i nt o an agr eement wi t h t he Depart ment of J ust i ce,

r epr esent ed by Auer hahn, r egardi ng hi s cooper at i on i n t he Fer r ar a

i nvest i gat i on. Under t he agr eement , J or dan was t o pr ovi de f ul l and

t r ut hf ul knowl edge about Fer r ar a and hi s ent er pr i se to t he

government i n exchange f or near l y compl ete i mmuni t y f r om any

r el at ed cr i mi nal pr osecut i on, as wel l as ent r ance i nt o t he Feder al

Wi t ness Protect i on Progr am.

As par t of hi s cooper at i on wi t h t he gover nment , J or dan

spoke wi t h sever al members of t he St r i ke For ce. He admi t t ed t o

havi ng been i nvol ved i n Li mol i ' s mur der and expl ai ned t hat Bar one

ki l l ed Li mol i on Fer r ar a' s order s because Li mol i had st ol en a bag

cont ai ni ng cocai ne, money, and guns f r om anot her associ at e of La

Cosa Nost r a. J or dan' s sol e sour ce of i nf or mat i on about Fer r ar a' s

i nvol vement i n t he Li mol i mur der was Barone.

One week af t er hi s ar r est , J or dan t est i f i ed bef or e a

gr and j ur y t o t he det ai l s of Li mol i ' s mur der . J or dan t est i f i ed

t hat Bar one t ol d hi m t hat Li mol i had "got t en t he ' X' " and was no

l onger "under Vi ncent Fer r ar a' s wi ng" because of Li mol i ' s t hef t .

-4-


5/33

Regar di ng t he mur der i t sel f , J or dan admi t t ed t hat Bar one asked hi m

t o hel p by set t i ng up a meet i ng wi t h Li mol i . J or dan ar r anged t he

meet i ng wi t h Li mol i on t he pr etense of consummat i ng a dr ug deal

wi t h a t hi r d par t y. I nst ead, Bar one met Li mol i on hi s way t o t he

supposed dr ug deal and shot and ki l l ed hi m.

J or dan al so t est i f i ed t o meet i ngs i n t he days bef or e and

af t er t he mur der . Sever al days bef or e Li mol i ' s mur der , J or dan was

i n a car wi t h Bar one and anot her La Cosa Nost r a member named J oseph

Bot t ar i . At t hat t i me, Bar one sol i ci t ed Bot t ar i ' s assi st ance i n

t he mur der , sayi ng t hat " J i mmy had t o be cl i pped" and t hat Fer r ar a

had or der ed t he hi t . Bot t ar i r ef used t o hel p Bar one wi t h t he

mur der .

A f ew days af t er t he Li mol i murder , J ordan and Barone met

wi t h Fer r ar a i n a bl ack Li ncol n aut omobi l e. Fer r ar a was i n t he

f r ont seat wi t h anot her man who was unknown t o J ordan. Fer r ara

began aski ng quest i ons about t he Li mol i mur der t hat made i t appear

t hat he was uni nvol ved. J or dan t est i f i ed t hat he was conf used by

Fer r ar a' s quest i ons and t hought t hat Fer r ar a was t r yi ng t o hi de hi s

i nvol vement i n t he mur der f r om t he uni dent i f i ed per son.

A day or t wo af t er t he meet i ng i n t he bl ack Li ncol n,

Barone was summoned t o a Nor t h End r est aur ant t o meet wi t h Fer r ara.

Bar one r et ur ned f r om t he r est aur ant wi t hi n t hi r t y mi nut es,

"hyst er i cal , " and t ol d J or dan t hat t hey needed t o l eave t own

i mmedi at el y because Fer r ar a was goi ng t o ki l l t hem. Accor di ng t o

-5-


6/33

J or dan, Bar one t ol d J or dan t hat he di d not know why Fer r ar a want ed

t o ki l l t hem.

On or about November 5, 1985 f ol l owi ng Barone' s meet i ng

at t he r est aur ant , J or dan and Bar one l ef t Bost on. J or dan went t o

Myr t l e Beach, Sout h Car ol i na, wher e Bar one vi si t ed hi m i n t he

summer of 1986. I n hi s i ni t i al i nt er vi ews, J or dan t ol d FBI agent

Buckl ey t hat whi l e t hey wer e i n Sout h Car ol i na, Bar one di scussed

ki l l i ng Li mol i and al ways asser t ed t hat Fer r ar a had or der ed t he

hi t .

Af t er hi s gr and j ur y t est i mony, J or dan was r el ocat ed t o

Mai ne t o awai t f eder al wi t ness pr ot ect i on ser vi ces. Dur i ng t hi s

t i me, J or dan met extensi vel y wi t h member s of t he St r i ke For ce,

i ncl udi ng Auer hahn. The FBI r epor t s on t hese i nt er vi ews i ndi cat e

t hat J or dan consi st ent l y t ol d t he same stor y about Fer r ar a or der i ng

t he mur der of Li mol i .

Barone was ar r est ed i n Ohi o on J ul y 22, 1988, and was

i nt ervi ewed by t wo members of t he St r i ke For ce. Al t hough Barone

i ni t i al l y appear ed i ncl i ned t o cooper at e, he l at er ceased al l

cooper at i on. I n hi s br i ef per i od of cooper at i on wi t h t he

gover nment , he l ar gel y corr obor at ed J or dan' s account s. Al t hough he

deni ed any i nvol vement wi t h Li mol i ' s mur der , Bar one st at ed t hat t he

r eason f or Li mol i ' s mur der was Li mol i ' s t hef t . Bar one al so

conf i r med the meet i ngs wi t h Fer r ar a i n t he bl ack Li ncol n and at t he

r est aur ant .

-6-


7/33

Fol l owi ng f ur t her i nvest i gat i on, Bar one and Fer r ar a wer e

among ei ght def endant s named i n a si xt y- f i ve count supersedi ng

i ndi ct ment f i l ed i n Mar ch 1990 i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t

f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. Sever al of t hese count s r el at ed

t o Fer r ar a' s and Bar one' s i nvol vement i n Li mol i ' s mur der . I n or der

t o support compr ehensi ve "RI CO" charges t hat were al so a part of

t he i ndi ct ment , t he gover nment had t o est abl i sh a pat t er n of

r acket eer i ng and t hus, at l east as t o Bar one, had t o pr ove t hat

Bar one had conspi r ed wi t h Fer r ar a and ot her s t o mur der Li mol i i n

or der t o gai n, mai nt ai n, or advance t hei r posi t i ons wi t hi n t he

Pat r i ar ca f ami l y. The gover nment ' s mai n t heor y was t hat Bar one

mur der ed Li mol i on Fer r ar a' s i nst r uct i on i n or der t o move up i n La

Cosa Nost r a and t hat Fer r ar a had or der ed t he hi t t o vi ndi cat e t he

t hef t f r om a "made" La Cosa Nost r a member. J ordan' s t est i mony as

t o Bar one' s s t at ement s t hat Fer r ar a had or der ed t he hi t was,

t her ef or e, cr uci al t o pr ovi ng t he char ges i n t he i ndi ct ment .

B. Preparation for Trial

Bet ween 1988 and 1991, J ordan was i n t he Wi t ness

Pr ot ect i on Pr ogr am. I n ant i ci pat i on of t he t r i al of Bar one and

Fer r ara schedul ed t o begi n i n Sept ember 1991, Auerhahn, Sul l i van,

Col eman, and Buckl ey met wi t h J or dan i n Sal t Lake Ci t y, Ut ah f r om

J ul y 22 t o 24, 1991 ( t he "Ut ah meet i ng" ) . Auer hahn and Sul l i van

t ook copi ous not es dur i ng t he thr ee days of meet i ngs ( t he "Ut ah

not es") .

-7-


8/33

I n t hese i nt er vi ews, J or dan agai n t ol d t he St r i ke For ce

members about t he r est aur ant meet i ng and Barone' s vi si t t o Myr t l e

Beach. J or dan expl ai ned t hat when, i n Sout h Car ol i na, he agai n

asked Barone about why Fer r ara want ed t o ki l l t hem, Barone sai d

t hat he di d not know. J or dan al so t ol d t he St r i ke For ce t hat hi s

par ent s t ol d hi mt hat Bar one was supposed t o ki l l J or dan t he ni ght

t hat t hey ki l l ed Li mol i because J or dan was a wi t ness. These

st at ement s ar e al l r ef l ect ed i n t he Ut ah not es. Concer ned t hat

J or dan appeared t o be waf f l i ng about t he cr uci al l i nk t o Fer r ar a,

Sul l i van i nst r uct ed Col eman t o t al k t o J or dan t o shor e hi m up.

Lat e on t he ni ght of J ul y 24, 1991, J or dan vi si t ed

Col eman i n hi s hot el r oom. J or dan di scl osed t hat he had wi t hhel d

cer t ai n i nf or mat i on concer ni ng Fer r ar a' s i nvol vement i n t he Li mol i

homi ci de. Accor di ng t o Bar Counsel , J or dan t ol d Col eman t hat ,

af t er Bar one ret ur ned f r omt he rest aur ant , Bar one tol d J or dan t hat

Fer r ar a want ed t o ki l l t hem because Bar one had not obt ai ned

Fer r ar a' s per mi ssi on t o ki l l Li mol i , and t hus t hey had t o f l ee

Bost on ( t he " ' no per mi ssi on' st at ement " ) . Accor di ng t o Bar

Counsel , J ordan t hus admi t t ed t o havi ng l i ed when he pr evi ousl y

t ol d i nvest i gat or s and t he gr and j ur y t hat Bar one had t ol d hi m

Fer r ara had ordered t he hi t and t hat Barone di d not know why

Fer r ar a want ed t o ki l l t hem. I n suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on, Bar

Counsel poi nt ed t o a handwr i t t en memorandum, pur por t edl y aut hored

by Col eman. Accordi ng t o the memorandum, J ordan t ol d Col eman t hat

-8-


9/33

when Barone retur ned f r omt he meet i ng i n t he Nort h End r est aur ant ,

J or dan l earned t hat Bar one "had f ucked up, and di d not get

per mi ssi on t o ki l l J i mmy Li mol i . "

By J ul y 26, 1991, t he St r i ke For ce members had r etur ned

t o Bost on. Col eman asked t o meet pr i vat el y wi t h Auerhahn t o r eport

on hi s vi si t wi t h J or dan i n Ut ah. When Col eman ar r i ved at t hei r

meet i ng, Auerhahn saw t hat he was, i n Auerhahn' s words, "ver y

agi t at ed" and "al most near t ear s. " Auer hahn even wor r i ed t hat

Col eman was " goi ng t o have a hear t at t ack" because he was so upset .

Col eman r epor t ed t o Auerhahn t hat J ordan had expr essed di scomf or t

or uncer t ai nt y about some of t he t est i mony that he was t o gi ve

r egar di ng the Li mol i mur der .

Bar Counsel al l eged i n t he di st r i ct cour t di sci pl i nar y

pr oceedi ngs t hat , i n t hi s meet i ng, Col eman t ol d Auer hahn t hat

" i nf or mat i on had been wi t hhel d, t hat Bar one had sai d t hat [ Fer r ar a]

di d not or der t he hi t . " I n ot her wor ds, Bar Counsel al l eged t hat

Col eman r el ayed t he "no permi ss i on" st atement t o Auerhahn.

Auer hahn count ered t hat Col eman never t ol d hi m t he det ai l s of

J or dan' s st at ement s. I nst ead, he cl ai med t hat , because Col eman was

so upset , he di d not ask Col eman speci f i cal l y what J or dan had t ol d

Col eman i n t he J ul y 24 Ut ah meet i ng. He di d acknowl edge, however ,

t hat Col eman t ol d hi m gener al l y t hat J or dan had come t o hi m i n hi s

hot el r oomand admi t t ed t o wi t hhol di ng some i nf or mat i on. Auer hahn

cl ai med t hat he t ol d Col eman t o cal m down and t hat t hey woul d

-9-


10/33

f i gur e out what J or dan sai d and deal wi t h t he r eper cussi ons.

Auerhahn di d not i nst r uct Col eman t o document what J ordan t ol d hi m

i n Ut ah.

Af t er hi s meet i ng wi t h Col eman, Auerhahn deci ded t hat he

needed t o f i gur e out whet her J or dan had been t el l i ng t he t r ut h

about Barone' s s t atement s or merel y t el l i ng t he government what he

t hought t hat i t want ed t o hear . Auerhahn ar r anged f or J or dan t o

t el ephone f r om wi t ness pr ot ect i on on J ul y 29, 1991, and bot h

Auerhahn and Col eman were pr esent f or t he phone cal l .

Bar Counsel ar gued t hat i n t hi s phone cal l , J or dan t ol d

Auer hahn about t he "no per mi ss i on" st at ement . I n suppor t of t hi s

cont ent i on, she agai n ci t ed t he pur por t ed Col eman handwr i t t en

memorandum. Auerhahn di d not r ecal l any speci f i cs of hi s phone

cal l wi t h J or dan, but he was adamant t hat t he cal l woul d not have

i ncl uded t he subst ance of any changed t est i mony because such

sensi t i ve di scussi ons woul d onl y have t aken pl ace f ace- t o- f ace.

Whatever t he subst ance of t he t el ephone conver sat i on wi t h

J or dan, Auer hahn ar r anged t o meet wi t h hi m i n Mi nneapol i s,

Mi nnesot a, whi ch occur r ed on August 27 and 28, 1991 ( t he "Mi nnesot a

meet i ng") . Col eman and Buckl ey al so at t ended t hi s meet i ng.

Auer hahn t est i f i ed t hat i n Mi nnesot a, J or dan t ol d hi m

about an event i n Myrt l e Beach i n whi ch Bar one, af t er f i r st sayi ng

t hat Fer r ar a had not or der ed t he hi t on Li mol i , i mmedi at el y

r et r act ed t hat st at ement or sai d t hat he was j oki ng ( t he "Myrt l e

-10-


11/33

Beach st atement " ) . Accordi ng t o Auerhahn, J ordan was

" f l i p- f l oppi ng" i n t he Mi nnesot a meet i ng as t o whet her , i n Sout h

Car ol i na, Bar one had sai d Fer r ar a di d or di d not or der t he hi t .

Auerhahn t ook notes, but not as copi ousl y as he had i n

Ut ah. Rat her t han cr eat i ng a separ at e set of not es f r om t he

meet i ng, as was hi s pr act i ce, Auer hahn added the i nf or mat i on that

he gar ner ed at t hi s meet i ng t o a t r i al out l i ne t hat he had begun t o

pr epar e at some poi nt af t er t he phone cal l wi t h J or dan ( t he

"Mi nnesot a not es") . Most of t he not es ref l ect J or dan' s or i gi nal

account . For exampl e, t he out l i ne i ndi cat es t hat Bar one "woul dn' t

say why" Fer r ar a want ed t o ki l l Bar one and J or dan. The out l i ne

al so r ef l ect s a f ew ot her st at ement s, however . One not e says t hat

Barone t ol d J ordan t hat t hey had t o l eave Bost on because J ordan was

al so supposed t o get "whacked. " Anot her not e st ates t hat Fer r ar a

mi ght have want ed to ki l l t hem because he "di dn' t appr ove or or der

mur der , " but t he not e al so r ecor ds t hat t hi s was sai d " i n Sout h

Car ol i na one t i me" and t hat J or dan "pr essed [ Bar one] on i t . " The

notes do not make any ment i on of Barone havi ng ret r act ed t he

st at ement or ot her wi se havi ng i ndi cat ed that he was j oki ng about

Fer r ar a not or der i ng t he hi t .

I n pr epar at i on f or t he t r i al of Fer r ar a and Bar one,

Auer hahn f i l ed a t r i al br i ef wi t h t he cour t on Oct ober 16, 1991,

set t i ng f or t h t he evi dence upon whi ch the government pl anned t o

r el y. Auer hahn' s br i ef r epr esent ed t hat J or dan woul d "t est i f y t o

-11-


12/33

Bar one' s st at ement t hat Li mol i was ki l l ed on t he or der s of Vi ncent

Fer r ar a. "

C. Ferrara's Plea and Barone's Conviction

The t r i al di d not begi n i n t he f al l of 1991 as pl anned.

On J anuary 22, 1992, Fer r ara pl eaded gui l t y t o, among other

char ges, mur der i n ai d of r acketeer i ng and conspi r acy t o commi t

mur der i n t he homi ci de of Li mol i , and he was sent enced t o

t went y- t wo year s i n pr i son. Up t o t hi s t i me, Auer hahn had never

di scl osed t he "no per mi ssi on" st at ement or t he Myr t l e Beach

st at ement t o Fer r ar a' s counsel .

I n May 1992, Fer r ara' s and Barone' s codef endant Raymond

Pat r i ar ca pl eaded gui l t y to sever al char ges and was f aci ng

sent enci ng. Auer hahn wr ot e a l et t er , dat ed May 8, 1992, t o

Pat r i ar ca' s at t or ney, 1 pr ovi di ng di scover y mat er i al i n connect i on

wi t h t he sent enci ng hear i ng, i n whi ch he st at ed:

Shor t l y af t er t he mur der , J or dan f l ed Bost onat t he di r ect i on of Bar one. ( Bar one f l ed aswel l . ) Some t i me l at er , J or dan l ear ned t her eason why he and Barone were f orced t o f l ee.J or dan l earned t hat Bar one was supposed t o useJ or dan t o set up Li mol i and t hen ki l l Li mol iand J ordan on t he ni ght of Oct ober 28, 1985.For f ai l i ng t o f ol l ow t he or der f r om Vi ncentM. Fer r ar a, and f or spar i ng t he l i f e of hi sbr ot her - i n- l aw, Bar one had i ncur r ed t he wr at hof Fer r ar a and pr oven t o be unr el i abl e.

Ther ef or e, bot h Bar one and J or dan wer e i nj eopar dy i f t hey r emai ned i n Bost on. On oneoccasi on, however , Barone pr ovi ded a di f f er entr eason whi ch compel l ed Barone and J ordan' s

1 The di st r i ct cour t r ecei ved a cour t esy copy of t hi s l et t er .

-12-


13/33

f l i ght f r omBost on. Pr i or t o l ear ni ng t hat het oo was t o be ki l l ed, J or dan was t ol d byBarone that t hey had t o l eave Bost on becauseBar one di d not get per mi ssi on t o ki l l Li mol i .When J ordan pr essed Barone on thi s, Baronei mmedi at el y r et r act ed t he st at ement , and

r ei t er at ed t hat t he mur der was at Fer r ar a' sdi r ect i on. Ther eaf t er , Bar one never agai nst ated t hat t he mur der was anyt hi ng but asanct i oned hi t .

Thi s was t he f i r st di scl osure Auer hahn made t o def ense

counsel or t he cour t t hat Bar one had ever t ol d J or dan, on any

occasi on, t hat Fer r ar a had not or der ed Li mol i ' s mur der or t hat

J or dan had made a st at ement i nconsi st ent wi t h hi s grand j ury

t est i mony. 2 Auer hahn, t her ef or e, di d not di scl ose t he subst ance of

t he Myr t l e Beach st atement t o def ense counsel f or near l y a year

af t er he l ear ned i t , and not unt i l af t er Fer r ar a and Pat r i ar ca had

al r eady pl eaded gui l t y.

Bar one went t o t r i al i n 1993, and J or dan t est i f i ed. I n

pr et r i al pr epar at i ons wi t h Auer hahn and Sul l i van, J or dan di d not

equi vocat e i n hi s st at ement s t hat Bar one had t ol d hi mt hat Fer r ar a

had or der ed t he Li mol i mur der . On May 28, 1993, i n ant i ci pat i on of

t he t r i al , Sul l i van sent a l et t er on behal f of t he gover nment t o

Bar one' s counsel . Thi s l et t er pr ovi ded det ai l s of J or dan' s

ant i ci pat ed t est i mony and, among other t hi ngs, made the same

2 When asked why he di scl osed the Myr t l e Beach st at ement t oPat r i ar ca' s counsel , Auer hahn t est i f i ed t hat t hey "wer e l i t i gat i ngPat r i ar ca' s sent enci ng, so [ t he di scl osur e] was r el at i ve t o t hatsent enci ng. "

-13-


14/33

di scl osur e as quot ed above f r om t he 1992 l et t er t o Pat r i ar ca' s

at t or ney.

Dur i ng Bar one' s t r i al , J or dan t est i f i ed i n a manner

l ar gel y consi st ent wi t h hi s gr and j ur y t est i mony and hi s st at ement s

t hat Fer r ar a had or der ed t he hi t . J or dan al so t est i f i ed t hat

Fer r ar a had been i nvol ved i n sever al ot her La Cosa Nost r a mur der s.

The t est i mony about t hese ot her murder s had not been di scl osed i n

J or dan' s grand j ury t est i mony or i n any FBI r epor t or not e f r om

Sul l i van or Auerhahn whi ch had been t ur ned over t o def ense counsel .

Buckl ey was cal l ed t o t he st and and cr oss- exami ned about t hese

ot her mur der s. He t est i f i ed t hat t he mur der s had been di scussed i n

sever al meet i ngs, i ncl udi ng meet i ngs i n 1991 when Sul l i van and

Auerhahn had been t aki ng notes. Def ense counsel r equest ed a copy

of t he pr osecut or s' not es r ef l ect i ng t hei r meet i ngs wi t h J or dan i n

1988 and 1991. I n r esponse t o an i nqui r y by t he di st r i ct j udge,

Auerhahn r epr esent ed t hat he had no notes f r omt he 1988 debr i ef i ng

sessi ons wi t h J or dan, but t hat he di d have "extensi ve not es f r om

t he Summer of 91. " Auerhahn, however , t ook t he posi t i on t hat t hose

not es wer e not di scover abl e. The cour t concl uded t hat t he not es

mi ght be di scover abl e i f t hey cont ai ned excul pat or y i nf or mat i on but

acknowl edged t hat at t orney work pr oduct woul d have t o be r edact ed.

The j udge di r ect ed Auerhahn t o provi de hi m, i n camer a, t hose

por t i ons of t he 1991 not es t hat cover ed the addi t i onal homi ci des

-14-


15/33

about whi ch J or dan had t est i f i ed. Auer hahn t ur ned over por t i ons of

t he Ut ah notes.

On Oct ober 29, 1993, Barone was convi ct ed and sent enced

t o l i f e i n pr i son f or conspi r acy t o commi t mur der i n ai d of

r acket eer i ng and t went y year s each f or t wo ot her count s. Bot h

Bar one and Fer r ar a l at er f i l ed pet i t i ons pur suant t o 28 U. S. C.

2255 t o vacat e, set asi de, or cor r ect t hei r sent ences.

D. Habeas Corpus Proceedings

I n May 2002, j ust bef or e Bar one was el i gi bl e f or par ol e,

J or dan cont act ed t he St r i ke For ce and al l eged gover nment cor r upt i on

i n t he Fer r ar a and Bar one cases. Af t er J or dan t est i f i ed r egar di ng

i nt i mi dat i on he cl ai med t o have f el t f r om t he gover nment t o say

t hat Fer r ar a had or der ed t he mur der of Li mol i , Barone and Fer r ar a

amended t hei r 2255 pet i t i ons. A Depar t ment of J ust i ce Task For ce

i nvest i gat ed J or dan' s per j ur y cl ai ms, and on Sept ember 3, 2003, t he

cour t began hear i ng t est i mony concer ni ng t hese al l egat i ons i n

connect i on wi t h Bar one' s and Fer r ar a' s habeas pr oceedi ngs.

I n a conf er ence bef or e the hear i ng, t he cour t i nqui r ed

about not es or r epor t s f r omt he gover nment ' s i ni t i al pr epar at i on of

J or dan. Upon l earni ng t hat t hese not es had not been di scl osed i n

t he habeas pr oceedi ngs, t he cour t ordered t he government t o pr oduce

t o def ense counsel "any repor t s or not es made by any par t i ci pant i n

t he [ Ut ah] meet i ng r egar di ng any di scussi on wi t h J or dan at any

t i me. "

-15-


16/33

Auerhahn r esponded t o the or der by t ur ni ng over onl y hi s

Ut ah not es. Auer hahn di d not pr ovi de t he cour t wi t h t he Mi nnesot a

not es, whi ch cont ai ned hi s handwr i t t en t r i al out l i ne of J or dan' s

expected t est i mony. On Sept ember 5, 2003, dur i ng t he cour se of t he

habeas hear i ngs, Auer hahn t est i f i ed t hat he di d not f i nd any

separate notes f r omt he Mi nnesota meet i ng. He st ated t hat he was

sur pr i sed not t o f i nd any not es f r om t hat meet i ng because i t was

hi s usual pr act i ce t o t ake not es dur i ng t r i al pr epar at i on.

Auer hahn t est i f i ed t hat i t was possi bl e t hat he had t he Ut ah not es

wi t h hi m i n Mi nnesot a and t hat he mi ght have j ust added t o those

notes.

Somet i me bet ween Sept ember 5 and Sept ember 24, Auer hahn

pr oduced t he Mi nnesot a notes to government counsel . These notes

had never bef ore been produced. On September 24, as t he habeas

hear i ng cont i nued, Auer hahn t est i f i ed t hat he f ound t he out l i ne

when he went t hr ough hi s f i l es wi t h more care and at t ent i on. 3

On Oct ober 3, 2003, t he di st r i ct j udge i nf or med t he

par t i es t hat he woul d gr ant Bar one' s habeas pet i t i on. Bar one

subsequent l y negot i at ed a pl ea agr eement t hat r esul t ed i n hi s

i mmedi at e r el ease f r ompr i son. On Apr i l 12, 2005, t he j udge, based

on f i ndi ngs hi ghl y cr i t i cal of Auer hahn' s pr of essi onal conduct , 4

3 Fr om t hi s poi nt f or war d, our di scussi on i s not t aken f r omt he Panel ' s f i ndi ngs of f act .

4 I n Auer hahn' s di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs, t he Panel chose nott o r el y on t he di st r i ct j udge' s f i ndi ngs f or t wo r easons. Fi r st ,

-16-


17/33

al l owed Fer r ar a' s habeas pet i t i on, vacat ed Fer r ar a' s ori gi nal

sent ence, and sent enced hi m t o t i me ser ved wi t h t hr ee year s of

super vi sed r el ease. Fer r ar a v. Uni t ed St at es, 384 F. Supp. 2d 384

( D. Mass. 2005) ; Fer r ar a v. Uni t ed St at es, 372 F. Supp. 2d 108 ( D.

Mass. 2005) . We af f i r med t hi s deci si on. Fer r ar a v. Uni t ed St at es,

456 F. 3d 278 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

E. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Auerhahn

On J anuar y 10, 2005, t he Of f i ce of Pr of essi onal

Responsi bi l i t y of t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce ( "OPR") i ssued a

112page r epor t , f i ndi ng t hat Auer hahn act ed i n r eckl ess di sr egar d

of di scover y obl i gat i ons by f ai l i ng t o document J or dan' s s t at ement s

at t he Ut ah meet i ng, and t hat he exer ci sed poor j udgment by f ai l i ng

t o compl y wi t h t he cour t or der t o submi t hi s not es f r om meet i ngs

wi t h J or dan. As a r esul t , t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney pr i vat el y

di sci pl i ned Auer hahn i n t he f or m of a wr i t t en r epr i mand.

By l et t er dat ed J une 29, 2007, t he di st r i ct j udge

r equest ed t hat Bar Counsel i ni t i at e di sci pl i nar y act i on agai nst

Auer hahn. The j udge al so i nf or med t he Uni t ed St at es At t orney

Gener al t hat t he cour t was i ni t i at i ng di sci pl i nar y act i on because

he di d not f i nd t he OPR sanct i on t o be appr opr i ate. The same day,

t he cour t r ef er r ed t he mat t er t o Bar Counsel .

t he habeas proceedi ngs i nvol ved a l ower st andar d of pr oof of t hegovernment ' s mi sconduct . Second, Auerhahn was not personal l yr epr esent ed i n t he habeas proceedi ngs.

-17-


18/33

Bar Counsel r evi ewed t he pl eadi ngs and t r anscr i pt s f r om

t he cr i mi nal cases and habeas proceedi ngs, t he mater i al s t hat OPR

compi l ed f or i t s i nvest i gat i on, and cor r espondence t hat Auer hahn

sent t o Bar Counsel . Bar Counsel al so met wi t h Auerhahn and other

per sons wi t h knowl edge of t he mat t er . Based on her i nvest i gat i on,

Bar Counsel f i l ed a pet i t i on f or an or der t o show cause why

Auer hahn shoul d not be di sci pl i ned. Al t hough Bar Counsel ' s

pet i t i on di d not set f or t h speci f i c count s, i t al l eged t hr ee

cat egor i es of mi sconduct .

The f i r st cat egor y of al l eged mi sconduct ar ose f r om

Auer hahn' s f ai l ur e t o di scl ose t o Bar one' s and Fer r ar a' s counsel

t he "no permi ss i on" st atement and t he Myr t l e Beach st atement .

Speci f i cal l y, Bar Counsel al l eged t hat Auer hahn shoul d have

i nst r uct ed Col eman t o memor i al i ze what J or dan t ol d hi m i n Ut ah,

shoul d have di scl osed notes based on the Ut ah meet i ng, and shoul d

have memor i al i zed J ordan' s st atement s at t he Mi nnesota meet i ng.

Bar Counsel asser t ed t hat Auer hahn' s conduct vi ol at ed sever al

di sci pl i nar y r ul es, t wo of whi ch ar e r el evant on appeal . One r ul e

st at ed,

A publ i c prosecut or or other government l awyeri n cri mi nal l i t i gat i on shal l make t i mel ydi scl osur e t o counsel f or t he def endant . . .

of t he exi st ence of evi dence, known t o t hepr osecut or or other gover nment l awyer , t hatt ends t o negat e the gui l t of t he accused,mi t i gat e t he degr ee of t he of f ense, or r educet he puni shment .

-18-


19/33

Mass. Sup. J ud. Ct . R. 3: 07, Canon Seven, Di sci pl i nar y R. 7- 103( B)

( 1990) ( "Rul e 7- 103( B) " ) . 5 The ot her st at ed,

I t i s unpr of essi onal conduct f or a pr osecut ort o f ai l t o make t i mel y di scl osur e t o t he

def ense of t he exi st ence of evi dence, known t ohi m, suppor t i ng t he i nnocence of t hedef endant . He shoul d at t he ear l i est f easi bl eoppor t uni t y, di scl ose evi dence whi ch woul dt end t o negat e t he gui l t of t he accused ormi t i gat e t he degr ee of t he of f ense or r educet he puni shment .

Mass. Sup. J ud. Ct . R. 3: 08, Pr osecut i on Funct i on 7( a) ( 1990)

( "Prosecut i on Funct i on 7( a) ") .

The second cat egor y of al l eged mi sconduct i nvol ved t he

pr esi di ng j udge' s or der at Bar one' s t r i al t hat Auer hahn pr ovi de

t hose por t i ons of hi s not es t hat cover ed t he addi t i onal homi ci des

about whi ch J or dan had t est i f i ed. Auer hahn t ur ned over por t i ons of

t he Ut ah not es, but not t he Mi nnesot a not es. Auerhahn l at er t ol d

OPR i nvest i gators t hat he had wi t hhel d t he Mi nnesot a notes because

he consi der ed t hem t o be a t r i al out l i ne and t hus pr ot ect ed wor k

pr oduct . Bar Counsel cont ended t hat by r epr esent i ng t hat he had

compl i ed wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di scl osur e or der , Auer hahn

vi ol at ed r ul es pr ohi bi t i ng at t or neys f r om maki ng f al se st at ement s

and di sr egar di ng cour t r ul es.

5 At t he t i me of t he al l eged mi sconduct , Massachuset t s st at edi sci pl i nar y r ul es appl i ed t o f eder al pr osecut or s i n t heMassachuset t s di st r i ct cour t by vi r t ue of a l ocal r ul e. D. Mass.R. 83. 6( 4) ( B) ( 1990) . Congr ess l at er enact ed a st at ut e subj ect i ngal l f eder al pr osecut or s t o st at e di sci pl i nar y r ul es. 28 U. S. C. 530B ( 1998) .

-19-


20/33

The t hi r d cat egor y of al l eged mi sconduct concer ned

Auer hahn' s del ay i n pr oduci ng t he Mi nnesot a not es dur i ng Fer r ar a' s

and Barone' s habeas pr oceedi ngs. Bar Counsel cl ai med t hat Auerhahn

i nt ent i onal l y f ai l ed t o pr oduce t he Mi nnesot a not es, vi ol at i ng

di sci pl i nar y r ul es r equi r i ng compl i ance wi t h t he cour t ' s r ul es and

pr ohi bi t i ng di shonest y.

The cour t concl uded t hat Bar Counsel ' s pet i t i on provi ded

pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve that Auerhahn had engaged i n t he al l eged

mi sconduct , and i t order ed Auer hahn t o show cause why he shoul d not

be di sci pl i ned. Auer hahn answer ed t he pet i t i on, and t he cour t

appoi nt ed t he Panel t o det er mi ne whet her t o di sci pl i ne hi m.

On J ul y 7, 2010, one of t he Panel ' s j udges i ssued an

or der , docket ed as a "Procedur al Or der , " whi ch descr i bed t he

pet i t i on as al l egi ng not t hr ee, but t wo cat egor i es of pr of essi onal

mi sconduct : ( 1) f ai l i ng t o pr eserve and di scl ose t o def ense counsel

excul pat ory evi dence i n t he Fer r ar a and Bar one pr osecut i ons, and

( 2) f ai l i ng t o pr oduce t he t r i al out l i ne ( t hat i s, t he Mi nnesot a

not es) i n r esponse t o t he cour t ' s order i n t he habeas corpus

pr oceedi ngs. The pr ocedur al order di d not ment i on Auerhahn' s

f ai l ur e to pr oduce t he Mi nnesota not es f or i n camer a revi ew i n

r esponse t o t he j udge' s or der dur i ng Bar one' s t r i al . Bar Counsel

f i l ed a "Cl ar i f i cat i on, " whi ch hi ghl i ght ed t he al l egat i ons t hat t he

Panel had appar ent l y set asi de and asked t he cour t t o consi der

document s r el evant t o t hese al l egat i ons when determi ni ng t he scope

-20-


21/33

of t he r ecor d. The cour t deni ed Bar Counsel ' s r equest , sayi ng onl y

t hat "Bar Counsel ' s mot i on t o ' cl ar i f y' t he i ssues by addi ng a

t hi r d, i s deni ed. "

F. The Panel's Opinion

Fol l owi ng br i ef i ng, or al ar gument , and r evi ew of t he

r ecor d, t he Panel deni ed Bar Counsel ' s pet i t i on i n al l r espect s.

Fi r st , t he Panel r ej ect ed Bar Counsel ' s ar gument t hat

Auer hahn vi ol at ed Rul e 7- 103 and Pr osecut i on Funct i on 7( a) by

f ai l i ng t o di scl ose Bar one' s post - r est aur ant - meet i ng "no

permi ss i on" st atement . Al t hough t he st atement woul d have been

excul pat or y - - t he Panel st at ed t hat "a f ai r por t i on of t he

government ' s RI CO case woul d have cr umbl ed" i f t he st atement were

t r ue - - Bar Counsel f ai l ed t o pr ove by cl ear and convi nci ng

evi dence t hat Auer hahn ever l ear ned of t he st at ement , i f i t was

made at al l . The r ecor d di d cont ai n a handwr i t t en memorandum by

Col eman r ecount i ng J or dan' s st at ement t hat Fer r ar a want ed t o ki l l

Barone and J ordan because Barone di d not have Fer r ara' s per mi ss i on

t o ki l l Li mol i , but t he memorandum' s pr ovenance made i t

i nsuf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e t o est abl i sh t he cont ent of J or dan' s

conver sat i on wi t h Col eman. 6 Moreover , even i f J ordan made t he "no

permi ss i on" st atement t o Col eman i n t hei r Ut ah meet i ng, Bar Counsel

6 On appeal , Bar Counsel accept s t he Panel ' s f i ndi ng t hatCol eman' s memor andum was i nsuf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e. Based on ot herevi dence, one member of t he Panel concl uded t hat J ordan di d t el lCol eman about t he "no permi ss i on" st atement .

-21-


22/33

f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat Col eman t hen r el ayed t he st atement t o Auerhahn

when t hey met i n Bost on. Al t hough a "ver y agi t ated" Col eman t ol d

Auerhahn about J ordan' s di scomf ort wi t h hi s upcomi ng t est i mony,

Auer hahn t est i f i ed dur i ng t he OPR i nvest i gat i on t hat Col eman' s

agi t at i on came not f r omany ser i ousl y damagi ng st atement by J ordan,

but f r ombei ng t ol d somet hi ng i n conf i dence and t he possi bi l i t y of

J or dan t r yi ng t o "pl ay[ ] " Col eman by di scr edi t i ng hi msel f t o avoi d

havi ng t o t est i f y. The maj or i t y of t he Panel f ound Auer hahn' s

expl anat i on pl ausi bl e enough t o pr ecl ude a f i ndi ng t hat Auer hahn

had actual knowl edge of t he "no permi ss i on" st atement .

A maj or i t y of t he Panel al so det er mi ned that Bar Counsel

f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat Auer hahn' s cour se of act i on af t er hi s meet i ng

wi t h Col eman i n Bost on vi ol at ed a di sci pl i nar y r ul e pr ohi bi t i ng a

pr osecut or f r om i nt ent i onal l y avoi di ng t he pur sui t of evi dence.

The Panel det er mi ned t hat Auerhahn di d not car ef ul l y document t he

Mi nnesota meet i ng, but i t hel d t hat Auer hahn' s l ack of di l i gence

was not equi val ent t o i nt ent i onal avoi dance of evi dence, and t hus

was not sanct i onabl e. 7

The Panel t hen t urned t o Auer hahn' s f ai l ure t o di scl ose,

t o Bar one and Fer r ar a, Bar one' s Myr t l e Beach st at ement t hat Fer r ar a

had not or der ed t he hi t . Based on Auer hahn' s not es f r om t he

Mi nnesot a meet i ng, t he Panel f ound t hat , as of August 28, 1991,

7 One member of t he panel woul d have f ound t hat , af t er t heMi nnesot a meet i ng, Auer hahn vi ol at ed a di sci pl i nar y r ul e by f ai l i ngt o ask Col eman what J ordan had t ol d hi m i n Ut ah.

-22-


23/33

Auer hahn was aware of some st r ai n of t he Myr t l e Beach st at ement

( t hat i s, t hat Bar one had sai d t hat Fer r ar a di d not or der Li mol i ' s

mur der but i mmedi atel y ret r acted t hat st atement or sai d t hat he was

j oki ng) . Never t hel ess, Auer hahn had not di scl osed t he Myr t l e Beach

st at ement when Fer r ar a pl ed gui l t y i n J anuar y 1992 t o conspi r i ng t o

mur der Li mol i and was sent enced t o t went y- t wo years i n pr i son. The

government di d not di scl ose t he Myr t l e Beach st atement t o Barone' s

counsel unt i l May 1993, shor t l y bef or e Bar one' s t r i al .

The Panel r ul ed t hat Auer hahn di d not vi ol at e any

di sci pl i nar y r ul es by f ai l i ng t o di scl ose t he Myr t l e Beach

st at ement . Wi t h r espect t o Fer r ar a' s pl ea, t he Panel st at ed t hat

" [ t ] hi s ver si on of what Bar one sai d t o J or dan was mi l dl y

excul pat or y bot h on i t s f ace and as an i nconsi st ency wi t h J or dan' s

ot her t est i mony, but i t i s not l i kel y t hat , wi t hout mor e, i t woul d

have subst ant i al l y af f ect ed t he j ur y' s deci si on, especi al l y because

t he r est of J or dan' s t est i mony t ended t o i ncul pat e Fer r ar a. " I n r e

Auer hahn, MBD No. 09- 10206, 2011 WL 4352350, at *11 ( D. Mass . Sept .

15, 2011) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, "[ e] ar l i er di scl osur e

of t he Myr t l e Beach st atement . . . si mpl y woul d have made no

si gni f i cant di f f er ence t o Fer r ar a' s pl ea di scussi ons. " I d. at *15.

Wi t h r espect t o Bar one' s t r i al and convi ct i on, t he Panel hel d t hat

t he government ' s di scl osur e t o Barone was t i mel y because " i t was

event ual l y di scl osed t o def ense counsel bef or e J or dan t est i f i ed. "

I d.

-23-


24/33

Fi nal l y, t he Panel deci ded t hat Auer hahn di d not vi ol at e

hi s pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t i es when he del ayed i n pr oduci ng t he

Mi nnesot a not es i n r esponse t o the cour t ' s or der dur i ng t he habeas

pr oceedi ngs i n 2003. Al t hough Auerhahn' s counsel conceded t hat

Auer hahn' s i ni t al r esponse t o t he cour t ' s or der was negl i gent , t he

Panel hel d t hat negl i gence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on

of t he r el evant r ul e. Thus, t he Panel deni ed Bar Counsel ' s

pet i t i on f or sanct i ons.

G. Bar Counsel's Appeal

Bar Counsel appeal ed, l i st i ng her sel f as t he appel l ant i n

t he docket i ng st atement . Bar Counsel cl ai ms t hat t he Panel made

t hr ee er r or s: i t r equi r ed Bar Counsel t o pr ove her case by cl ear

and convi nci ng evi dence rather t han by a pr eponderance of t he

evi dence, i t el i mi nat ed char ges r el at i ng t o Auer hahn' s f ai l ur e t o

di scl ose t he Mi nnesot a not es i n t he Bar one t r i al , and i t

i nt er pr et ed t he di sci pl i nar y r ul es as per mi t t i ng Auer hahn t o

wi t hhol d t he Myr t l e Beach st atement .

Auer hahn moved f or summar y di sposi t i on on t he grounds

t hat Bar Counsel had no st andi ng t o appeal t he Panel ' s or der . We

deni ed summar y di sposi t i on but asked t he par t i es t o addr ess t hi s

i ssue i n t hei r br i ef s.

II. Analysis

I n ever y case, we must sat i sf y our sel ves of j ur i sdi ct i on.

Gar c a- Vel zquez v. Fr i t o Lay Snacks Car i bbean, 358 F. 3d 6, 8 ( 1st

-24-


25/33

Ci r . 2004) . Auer hahn cont ends that we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on because

Bar Counsel has no st andi ng t o appeal t he Panel ' s or der . Bar

Counsel r esponds t hat her i nt er est i n t hi s case suf f i ces t o conf er

st andi ng t o appeal . For t he r easons bel ow, we hol d t hat Bar

Counsel l acks st andi ng t o appeal .

Gener al l y, "onl y par t i es t o a l awsui t , or t hose t hat

pr oper l y become par t i es, may appeal an adver se j udgment . " Mar i no

v. Or t i z, 484 U. S. 301, 304 ( 1988) . Except i ons t o t hi s rul e ar e

l i mi t ed. Nat ' l Ass' n of Chai n Dr ug St or es v. New Engl and

Car pent er s Heal t h Benef i t s Fund, 582 F. 3d 30, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ;

Mi cr osyst ems Sof t war e, I nc. v. Scandi navi a Onl i ne AB, 226 F. 3d 35,

39- 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . I n di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs, t he

compl ai nant who br i ngs an at t or ney' s al l eged mi sconduct t o t he

cour t ' s at t ent i on may not appeal t he cour t ' s deci si on. I n r e At t ' y

Di sci pl i nar y Appeal , 650 F. 3d 202, 202- 05 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ; see Ramos

Col on v. U. S. At t ' y f or t he Di st . of P. R. , 576 F. 2d 1, 5- 6, 8- 9

( 1st Ci r . 1978) . The Sevent h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat even a Uni t ed

St at es At t or ney who f i l ed a pet i t i on f or di sci pl i nar y act i on coul d

not appeal t he deci si on of a di sci pl i nar y panel wi t hout t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s per mi ssi on. I n r e Echel es, 430 F. 2d 347, 350- 51

( 7t h Ci r . 1970) ; I n r e Tei t el baum, 253 F. 2d 1, 1- 3 ( 7t h Ci r . 1958) .

Bar Counsel concedes t hat a pr i vat e part y may not appeal a

di sci pl i nar y panel ' s deci si on, but she asser t s t hat she

i nvest i gated and pr osecut ed Auer hahn' s case "as a part y wi t hout

-25-


26/33

l i mi t at i on. " As a r esul t , Bar Counsel ar gues, she has st andi ng t o

appeal t he Panel ' s deci si on.

To det er mi ne whet her Bar Counsel can pur sue t hi s appeal

as a par t y, we f i r st exami ne t he Massachuset t s di st r i ct cour t r ul es

under whi ch she was appoi nted. When al l eged mi sconduct comes t o

t he at t ent i on of a j udi ci al of f i cer , "t he j udi ci al of f i cer may

r ef er t he mat t er t o counsel f or i nvest i gat i on, t he pr osecut i on of

a f or mal di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ng or t he f or mul at i on of such ot her

r ecommendat i on as may be appr opr i ate. " D. Mass. R. ( "Local

Rul e" ) 83. 6( 5) ( A) . The cour t must appoi nt ei t her Bar Counsel or

anot her "di sci pl i nar y agency whi ch t he cour t deems sui t abl e. "

Local Rul e 83. 6( 9) ( A) . I f Bar Counsel or anot her agency decl i nes

t he appoi nt ment , t he cour t must appoi nt "one or more members of t he

[ cour t ' s] bar . " I d. "Counsel , once appoi nt ed, may not r esi gn

wi t hout per mi ssi on of [ t he] cour t . " I d. Her e, t he j udge r ef er r ed

t he mat t er t o Bar Counsel , who accept ed t he appoi nt ment .

Af t er her appoi nt ment , Bar Counsel i nvest i gat ed

Auer hahn' s conduct . Fol l owi ng t he pr ocedur e r equi r ed by Local

Rul e 83. 6( 5) ( C) , Bar Counsel t hen pet i t i oned t he cour t f or an or der

t o show cause why Auerhahn shoul d not be di sci pl i ned. The cour t

i ssued t he or der , and Auer hahn answer ed t he pet i t i on. Pur suant t o

Local Rul e 83. 6( 5) ( D) , a panel of t hr ee di st r i ct j udges was

-26-


27/33

appoi nt ed t o hear t he mat t er . 8 Af t er deci di ng mot i ons about t he

scope of t he charges agai nst Auerhahn and t he evi dent i ary recor d,

t he Panel hear d or al ar gument f r om at t or neys f or Bar Counsel and

Auer hahn. The Panel deni ed Bar Counsel ' s pet i t i on f or di sci pl i nar y

sanct i ons, and Bar Counsel f i l ed a not i ce of appeal as " t he

pet i t i oner i n t he above named case [ i . e. , I n t he Mat t er of J ef f r ey

Auer hahn] . " Bar Counsel does not cl ai m t hat t hi s appeal was

aut hor i zed by t he chi ef j udge, by t he next most seni or j udge who

appoi nt ed t he Panel , by t he Panel i t sel f , or by t he di st r i ct cour t

j udges act i ng ei t her col l ect i vel y or pur suant t o a del egat i on

pr ocedur e.

We hol d that Bar Counsel was not a par t y t o Auerhahn' s

di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs and t hus may not appeal t he Panel ' s

deci si on. Under t he Local Rul es, Bar Counsel was appoi nt ed as

"counsel , " not as a par t y. Nor does Bar Counsel ' s name appear i n

t he capt i on of t he case. Unl i ke a pr osecut or , Bar Counsel was

appoi nt ed t o assi st t he di st r i ct cour t i n car r yi ng out i t s own

di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs- - a t ask t hat t he di st r i ct cour t coul d have

assi gned t o any member of i t s bar . 9

8Under Local Rul e 83. 6( 5) ( D) , t he chi ef j udge of t he di st r i ctcour t sets t he mat t er f or a hear i ng bef or e a t hr ee- j udge panel ,

unl ess t he chi ef j udge i s t he compl ai nant , i n whi ch case t he nextmost seni or j udge assumes t he chi ef j udge' s r esponsi bi l i t i es.Her e, t he chi ef j udge was t he compl ai nant , so t he next most seni orj udge set Auer hahn' s hear i ng and appoi nted t he panel .

9 Unl i ke t he Local Rul es, t he r ul es of t he Massachuset t sSupr eme J udi ci al Cour t expl i ci t l y per mi t Bar Counsel t o appeal a

-27-


28/33

Because t her e i s l i t t l e pr ecedent f or an appeal of a

di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on not t o i mpose di sci pl i ne, we al so l ook

f or gui dance i n t he l aw gover ni ng appeal s f r om t he somewhat

anal ogous ci r cumst ances of a di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of a

cont empt pr oceedi ng. The Uni t ed St ates may appeal such a

di smi ssal , but t hi s aut hor i t y i s st at ut or y. 18 U. S. C. 3731;

Uni t ed St at es v. Gol dman, 277 U. S. 229 ( 1928) . By cont r ast , no

st at ut e or r ul e per mi t s Bar Counsel t o appeal t he Panel ' s deci si on.

We bel i eve t hat Bar Counsel i s mor e aki n t o t he pr i vat e pr osecut or s

i n Uni t ed St at es v. McKenzi e, 735 F. 2d 907 ( 5t h Ci r . 1984) , whom

t he di st r i ct cour t appoi nt ed t o advocat e cr i mi nal cont empt f or

vi ol at i on of a pr oduct i on or der . The di st r i ct cour t event ual l y

di smi ssed the cont empt pr oceedi ngs, and the pr i vat e pr osecut or s

appeal ed. The Fi f t h Ci r cui t di smi ssed t he appeal :

The di smi ssal of t he [ cont empt ] proceedi ngsef f ect i vel y r evokes t he pr osecut or s'appoi nt ment . . . . The pr i vat e pr osecut or swho der i ved t hei r r epr esent at i on aut hor i t ywhol l y f r om t he di st r i ct cour t . . . have hadt hat aut hor i t y whol l y ter mi nat ed by that samei dent i cal cour t . . . . The pr i vat epr osecut or s t her ef or e no l onger r epr esent t hecour t ; t hey appeal on t hei r own behal f f r omt he cour t ' s deni al of t hei r appl i cat i on f or ashow- cause or der . Consequent l y, t hi s Cour thas no j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s pecul i ar appeal .

deci si on not t o di sci pl i ne an at t or ney. Mass. Sup. J ud. Ct .R. 4: 01 8( 6) .

-28-


29/33

I d. at 911- 12. For t he same r eason, Bar Counsel ' s f or mal

i nvol vement i n t hi s pr oceedi ng ended when t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

Bar Counsel ' s pet i t i on.

I f any ent i t y has st andi ng t o appeal t he deni al of Bar

Counsel ' s pet i t i on, i t i s t he di s t r i ct cour t i t sel f . A di s t r i ct

cour t may def end i t s r ul es i n i t s own cour t and on appeal , see

St er n v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or t he Di st . of Mass. , 214 F. 3d 4 ( 1st

Ci r . 2000) , and i t may appeal a r ul i ng by anot her cour t

i nval i dat i ng i t s r ul es, see Whi t ehouse v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or t he

Di st . of R. I . , 53 F. 3d 1349 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Al t hough a di st r i ct

cour t may have l i t t l e i ncent i ve t o appeal i t s own deci si on, such an

appeal coul d be appr opr i at e when t he di st r i ct cour t bel i eves t hat

t he cour t of appeal s shoul d cl ar i f y or change t he appl i cabl e l aw.

See I n r e Echel es, 430 F. 2d at 350- 51 ( al l owi ng an appeal of a

deni al of a pet i t i on f or di sbar ment when t he di st r i ct cour t

aut hor i zed t he appeal ) . Because t he di st r i ct cour t di d not appeal

or aut hor i ze t he Panel ' s deci si on, Bar Counsel cannot pur sue t hi s

appeal on behal f of t he di st r i ct cour t .

Al t hough Bar Counsel cannot appeal because she was not a

par t y t o t hi s act i on, Ramos Col on, 576 F. 2d at 8- 9, we wi l l al so

eval uate our power of advi sor y mandamus pur suant t o t he Al l Wr i t s

Act , whi ch al l ows f eder al cour t s t o "i ssue al l wr i t s necessar y or

appr opr i at e i n ai d of " t hei r j ur i sdi ct i on. 28 U. S. C. 1651. That

act per mi t s t hi s cour t t o " t r eat an at t empt ed appeal f r om an

-29-


30/33

unappeal abl e (or possi bl y unappeal abl e) or der as a pet i t i on f or a

wr i t of mandamus. " Uni t ed St ates v. Horn, 29 F. 3d 754, 769 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) . We have expl ai ned t hat

advi sory mandamus i s avai l abl e onl y i n a t i nysubset of cases. Such cases ar e t hose t hatpr esent novel quest i ons of gr eat si gni f i cancewhi ch, i f not i mmedi at el y addr essed, ar el i kel y to r ecur and t o evade ef f ect i ve r evi ew.The ai m of advi sor y mandamus, t hen, i s t oset t l e subst ant i al quest i ons of l aw i nci r cumst ances t hat woul d assi st ot her j ur i st s,par t i es, [ and] l awyer s. To obt ai n r el i efunder t hi s speci es of mandamus, t he pet i t i onerdoes not need to show i r r eparabl e harm.

Uni t ed St at es v. Gr een, 407 F. 3d 434, 439 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( al t er at i on

i n or i gi nal ) . Her e, t he Panel r ul ed on t wo i ssues of gr eat

i mpor t ance. Fi r st , t he Panel deci ded t hat a pr osecut or ' s et hi cal

obl i gat i ons do not r equi r e di scl osur e of al l excul pat or y evi dence

t o a def endant , hol di ng t hat a pr osecut or may wi t hhol d cer t ai n

excul pat ory evi dence, such as evi dence not r equi r ed t o be di scl osed

under Br ady v. Maryl and, 373 U. S. 83 ( 1963) . Second, t he Panel

hel d t hat di scl osur e of excul pat or y evi dence coul d be t i mel y as

l ong as i t occur r ed bef or e t r i al , even i f t he pr osecut or wi t hhel d

t he evi dence f or year s. Appel l at e r ul i ngs on t hese i ssues woul d

"assi st ot her j ur i st s, par t i es, [ and] l awyer s. " Gr een, 407 F. 3d at

439 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

-30-


31/33

Never t hel ess, t o qual i f y f or advi sory mandamus, Bar

Counsel must pr esent a j ust i ci abl e "Case[ ] " or "Cont r over s[ y] "

wi t hi n t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e I I I of t he Const i t ut i on. "[ T] he cor e

component of st andi ng i s an essent i al and unchangi ng par t of t he

case- or - cont r over sy r equi r ement of Ar t i cl e I I I . " Luj an v.

Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 560 ( 1992) . Const i t ut i onal

st andi ng r equi r es an " i nj ur y i n f act , " a "causal connect i on bet ween

t he i nj ur y and t he conduct compl ai ned of , " and a l i kel i hood t hat

"t he i nj ur y wi l l be r edr essed by a f avor abl e deci si on. " I d. at

560- 61 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Bar Counsel does have a gener al i nt er est i n t hi s case:

beyond i t s r ol e as counsel t o t he di st r i ct cour t , Bar Counsel i s

char ged wi t h i nvest i gat i ng and pr osecut i ng at t or ney mi sconduct i n

Massachuset t s. Mass. Sup. J ud. Ct . R. 4: 01 7. Her e, Bar Counsel

ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi si nt er pr et ed Massachuset t s st at e

di sci pl i nar y r ul es by, among ot her t hi ngs, r eadi ng i nappr opr i at e

qual i f i cat i ons i nt o r ul es gover ni ng di scl osur e by pr osecut or s. But

"an asser t ed r i ght t o have t he Government act i n accor dance wi t h

l aw i s not suf f i ci ent , st andi ng al one, t o conf er j ur i sdi ct i on on a

f eder al cour t . " Al l en v. Wr i ght , 468 U. S. 737, 754 ( 1984) . The

Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y rei t er at ed t hi s pr i nci pl e i n Hol l i ngswor t h

v. Per r y, 133 S. Ct . 2652 ( 2013) , when i t hel d t hat a gr oup

per mi t t ed by Cal i f or ni a l aw t o r epr esent t he St at e' s i nt er est i n

t he val i di t y of a bal l ot i ni t i at e never t hel ess l acked st andi ng t o

-31-


32/33

appeal a deci si on of t he di st r i ct cour t when t he St at e i t sel f

decl i ned t o appeal . The Cour t based i t s deci si on par t l y on t he

pet i t i oner s' l ack of an agency r el at i onshi p wi t h t he St at e.

Bar Counsel ' s cl ai m t o st andi ng i s weaker t han t hat of

t he pet i t i oner s i n Hol l i ngswor t h, si nce no l aw vest s Bar Counsel

wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt er est i n di sci pl i nar y enf or cement .

Bar Counsel ar guabl y had a par t i cul ar i nt er est i n t hi s case by

vi r t ue of Local Rul es 83. 6( 5) ( A) and 83. 6( 9) ( A) , whi ch al l owed t he

di st r i ct cour t t o r ef er t he mat t er t o Bar Counsel . But , as we

expl ai ned above, t hat par t i cul ar i nt er est expi r ed when t he di st r i ct

cour t deni ed Bar Counsel ' s pet i t i on f or sanct i ons. Cf . McKenzi e,

735 F. 2d at 911- 12 ( "The di smi ssal of t he [ cont empt ] pr oceedi ngs

ef f ect i vel y r evokes t he pr osecut or s' appoi nt ment . . . . The

pr i vat e pr osecut or s who der i ved t hei r r epr esent at i on aut hor i t y

whol l y f r omt he di st r i ct cour t . . . have had t hat aut hor i t y whol l y

t er mi nat ed by t hat same i dent i cal cour t . " ) . Any agency

r el at i onshi p bet ween Bar Counsel and t he di st r i ct cour t expi r ed at

t he same moment . Theref ore, we concl ude t hat Bar Counsel l acks

st andi ng t o appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on. 10

10 Our deci si on does not necessar i l y i mpl y t hat we agr ee wi t ht he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on or condone Auer hahn' s conduct . Wehave di scussed our vi ew of Auer hahn' s conduct i n Fer r ar a v. Uni t edSt at es, 456 F. 3d 278 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

-32-


33/33

III. Conclusion

Because Bar Counsel l acks st andi ng t o appeal t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on, t he appeal i s dismissed f or l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on.

33

Documents

In re:Auerhahn, 1st Cir. (2013)