A U.S. Attorney appointed by Trump's professional misconduct must be kept "private and confidential."

An ethics watchdog found that a former U.S. attorney appointed by the Trump administration committed professional misconduct, including retaliating against a newspaper for negative coverage. However, details about John Sarcone's case have been deemed "private and confidential" and are not being released to the public. One of New York state's grievance committees, which determines penalties for violations of legal ethics, notified nonprofit groups last week of its finding against Sarcone, a former U.S. attorney in Albany. The committee has been tight-lipped about the specifics of its findings, and in a letter to a press freedom group, it even attempted to argue that it could not disclose the fact that it found "sufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct." One organization argued that no complainant, especially a press freedom organization, should be told to remain silent about something so newsworthy and important to New Yorkers and Americans. The letter from the Attorney Grievance Committee was dated April 1 and sent via email on May 8. The committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment on when the finding was reached. The committee's actions are part of a larger pattern of secrecy surrounding prosecutorial misconduct investigations in New York. One of the groups that filed a complaint, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said it was time for the state's legal ethics authorities to stop insisting on silence. Sarcone, a high-ranking prosecutor at the center of national news, was found by the New York Grievance Committee to have engaged in professional misconduct after retaliating against a news outlet. The foundation argued that no complainant, especially a press freedom organization, should be told to remain silent about something so newsworthy and important to New Yorkers and Americans. Sarcone and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the grievance committee said it was following state laws. According to the law, the committee's attorney said that until charges of professional misconduct are sustained against an attorney in a public order of the New York State Supreme Court, all documents related to the committee's investigation are sealed and deemed private and confidential. Sarcone had no prosecutorial experience when the Trump administration appointed him to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York last year. Since then, there has been a long-running debate about whether he can even hold the position. Sarcone has never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. After his temporary appointment expired, judges appointed a veteran prosecutor to fill the position, who was then fired within hours. Sarcone has continued to oversee the office while state Attorney General Letitia James and Justice Department lawyers argue in court about whether he lawfully holds the position. The administration has a strong incentive to keep the Trump loyalist in charge: the Albany prosecutor's office has jurisdiction over New York state politicians who have drawn the president's ire, including James. In addition to the question of whether he can hold the office, Sarcone has faced criticism for removing the Albany newspaper from his office's press list after it reported that he had attempted to claim a boarded-up apartment building as his home to satisfy residency requirements. This action was a violation of the First Amendment, the Freedom of the Press Foundation argued in a complaint filed with the grievance committee. The complaint alleged that Sarcone may have violated at least four of the state's rules of professional conduct. In its response to the complaint, the committee said that after deliberation, it determined there was a sufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct and took appropriate action. The case is now closed, and the committee said it had reached its conclusion at a "recent" meeting. The specific "appropriate action" taken by the committee is unclear. There are no records of public discipline in Sarcone's entry on the state attorney directory. The committee has a range of actions it can take, including private letters of reprimand. Another group that filed a similar complaint against Sarcone, Campaign for Accountability, argued that a "secret slap on the wrist" is insufficient. The organization's executive director said that Sarcone's pattern of conduct reflects on his credibility as an officer of the court, and that the public deserves to know what he was sanctioned for and why. The letters to both complainants included a heading indicating that they were "confidential." One organization argued that attempting to force people who filed complaints to remain silent about the letters they receive would be unconstitutional. A previous attempt by a state grievance committee to silence law professors who shared details about complaints they had filed against local prosecutors was unsuccessful, as the professors won a federal district court ruling in their favor.