## Facts

- Roger L. Davis served (1955–1959) as an attorney in the IRS Regional Counsel’s office in Jacksonville, Florida.
- While employed by the IRS, Davis personally worked on income-tax claims against Santo Trafficante, Jr. and Sam Trafficante, including participation in an administrative settlement determining their tax liability.
- After leaving government service, Davis entered private practice.
- The United States later filed civil actions to collect the assessed taxes from the Trafficantes, based on the previously determined liabilities.
- The Trafficantes retained Davis to represent them in the collection suits.
- Davis contacted IRS officials about whether the representation was permissible; the IRS advised that the representation would be unethical.
- The United States moved in the district court to disqualify Davis, relying on conflict-of-interest principles and 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) (post-employment restriction on former federal employees).

## Issues

1. Whether Davis’s representation of the Trafficantes in the federal tax collection suits violated 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) as representation in the same “particular matter” in which he had participated personally and substantially while at the IRS.
2. Whether, regardless of criminal liability under § 207(a), the federal court should disqualify Davis under its supervisory authority and professional-ethics standards to protect fairness and public confidence.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to disqualify.
- The court held that § 207(a), strictly construed as a criminal statute, did not clearly apply because the prior administrative settlement work and later judicial collection litigation were not the same “particular matter” within the statute’s meaning.
- The court nevertheless ordered Davis disqualified, concluding that the district court abused its discretion by allowing him to represent the Trafficantes in litigation substantially related to his prior government work.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal conflict-of-interest statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) are strictly construed; unclear coverage will not be extended to impose criminal liability.
- Federal courts have inherent authority to supervise attorneys appearing before them and may disqualify counsel when required to protect the integrity of proceedings.
- Disqualification standards are broader than criminal prohibitions and may be applied prophylactically to prevent misuse of government confidences and to avoid an appearance of impropriety.
- A former government lawyer may be disqualified from representing private parties in a matter substantially related to work performed for the government, especially where the representation is adverse to the United States and concerns the same liability or closely connected subject matter.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that, even though Davis’s conduct did not fall squarely within the narrow reach of § 207(a), his prior participation in resolving the Trafficantes’ tax liability made his later private representation in collection suits over that same liability improper under ethical and supervisory standards, requiring disqualification to preserve the integrity and perceived fairness of the judicial process.


United States v. Trafficante, 328 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1964)