As should be obvious, the proper place to resolve such disputes is in private
and, if necessary, before the courts -- not in the press. That is how we have
always attempted to resolve such disputes between our office and yours but,
apparently, some members of your staff appear to believe that these are
political matters to be decided by attempts to influence public opinion. The
only conceivable result from such tactics can be to undermine respect for, and
the effectiveness of, law enforcement and the fair administration of
In this regard, I would remind you that we have had continuing concerns
regarding leaks from your office to the press about confidential communications
with our office. See my letter to you of February 24, 1995, a copy of which is
attached. The quoted passages raise these same concerns once again.
In summary, I am deeply troubled at the recent efforts of you and your
subordinates to disparage independent counsels and the Special Division in the
press. If you are dissatisfied with an independent counsel and you believe you
have good cause to fire him, that is a right you have under 28 U.S.C. §
596. Alternatively, you may have the Special Division terminate his
investigation under § 596(b)(2). If you are dissatisfied with the
Independent Counsel Statute, the place to address any perceived problems is in
Attacking the independent counsels and their staffs, who are carrying out tom
the best of their abilities the investigations that you earlier set in motion,
by definition independently of the perceived needs and desires of the
Department of Justice, serves to undermine the cause of law enforcement,
generally, and the fair administration of justice, particularly. After all, Ms.
Reno, we who are independent counsel in fact took the same oath you took and
are certainly no less
well-intentioned than you!
I sincerely request that in the future you direct the officials who work for
you to temper their public remarks, and to present any concerns or criticisms
to our office or the offices of the other independent counsels so that any
genuine problems that arise can be addressed directly and not become the
subject of political grandstanding.
Finally, I speak only for myself and copy only those persons whose names are
shown below. I hope that we can resolve these concerns inter se.
Donald C. Smaltz
The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr
The Honorable David M. Barren
The Honorable Daniel S. Pearson
Michael E. Shaheen, Jr., Counsel,
Office of Professional Responsibility
Cf., ABA Model Rules of Professional
Responsibility, Rule 3.6, Trial Publicity:
(a) A lawyer who is participating, or has participated in the investigation or
litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a
reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public
communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a
substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in
 This office currently has three indictments
pending two of which are in this District, with more to follow.
 Cf., ABA Model Rules of Professional
Responsibility, Rule 8.2, Judicial and Legal Officials:
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or
with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge, ajudicatory officer or public legal
officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal
This article, which relies in significant part on an interview[s] with you and
others at DOJ states: "Reno, meanwhile, has quietly -- and unsuccessfully --
made an effort to rein in some of those far flung prosecutions. Some suggest
that this setback to Reno's authority may be affecting her current
decisions." (p. 45) (emphasis added)
 "Dear General Reno:
I wrote to appraise you of a concern that has just come to my attention this
afternoon which I believe requires immediate investigation by the
Today, my office received a call from a respected member of the press. During
the course of the conversation with Charles Bakaly, Deputy Independent Counsel,
that press representative inquired:
'about a letter from me to you requesting an expansion of jurisdiction over
Tyson Foods and attributed to you a position similar to that expressed in your
letter to me dated February 17, 1995.'
Our office has gone to great lengths to maintain our original letter from
Elizabeth Taylor to Lee Radek (indeed we labeled it with a 6(e) designation).
We similarly maintained your response in secret.
You are undoubtedly aware that Tyson Foods has been engaged in a well
orchestrated campaign to convince the public, Congress and others that I am
acting in excess of my jurisdiction in the course of my investigation. The
unauthorized release of not only the fact but also the nature of communications
between my office and yours concerning jurisdictional issues when 6(e)
materials are involved may well constitute a federal criminal offense.
Accordingly, by this letter to you I am requesting the Department of Justice to
undertake an investigation as to the source of the release of this confidential