ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In
the above-captioned case, Petitioner Margaret O’Shea seeks a ruling that her
work as a mitigation specialist in death penalty cases does not require
licensure or, alternatively, an order directing Respondent South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division (SLED) to renew her private investigator license under
Title 40, Chapter 18 without review of the records in her possession, which,
she argues, should be protected by the work product doctrine. Since she is
unable to work during the pendency of this matter, Mrs. O’Shea requested an
expedited hearing. After notice to the parties, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) on April 24, 2008. For the reasons
outlined below, I conclude that a mitigation specialist, such as Mrs. O’Shea,
who contracts exclusively with attorneys working on death penalty cases, need
not be licensed by SLED as a private investigator.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Mitigation Specialist
1. Mrs.
O’Shea has worked as a mitigation specialist in death penalty cases since
2001. In this capacity, she assists in investigating, analyzing, and
presenting mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of capital murder
trials. She also works on related appeals and post conviction relief (PCR)
proceedings. As a mitigation specialist in the context of a death penalty case,
she identifies psychological issues, interviews family members and others,
compiles documents, coordinates experts, suggests trial strategies, prepares a
detailed annotated chronology, and often prepares a genogram through several
generations to build a case for mental retardation or develop social history. She
drafts ongoing memos to the defense attorneys regarding her findings, drafts
memos of all interviews, outlines case strategy, and suggests experts to use.
She prepares experts for court, directs their focus, and works on exhibits for
trial. Her job is to gather as much information as she can about the
defendant, and then the attorneys choose what information to provide to the
witnesses. The mitigation specialist develops background facts to understand
how the individuals in the defendants’ often highly dysfunctional families
relate to each other.
Like a
paralegal, the mitigation specialist is part of the litigation team. She is
also the liaison with the defendant’s family. Her interviews with the criminal
defendant are ongoing, extensive, and crucial to her work and trial
preparation. Her work has a strong analytical component as she puts together
the defendant’s social history. Case strategy is communicated to counsel in
both verbal and written form; extensive conversations are usually memorialized,
either by the mitigation specialist or the attorney. Thus, the files in her
possession belong to the respective attorneys for whom she works.
2. Mrs.
O’Shea has worked as mitigation specialist on seventeen cases with the limited
pool of lawyers certified to provide death penalty defense in South Carolina. She
charges $50 per hour and half-rate for driving time, but she usually reduces
her bill before submitting invoices for court approval and payment to stay
within budget.
3. Before
becoming a mitigation specialist, Mrs. O’Shea was an investigative reporter for
thirty years for The State newspaper and other publications, with
significant experience on high profile stories and court cases. Her
journalistic endeavors garnered numerous awards: four times nominated for the
Pulitzer Prize, three times South Carolina Journalist of the Year, two times won The State’s Gonzales Award for Journalistic Excellence, and 115 other
awards from various civic and professional associations. Though SLED initially
denied her application for a private investigator’s license for lack of
experience, it issued the license after Mrs. O’Shea provided information on her
extensive investigative journalism background. Based on concerns that arose under
the previous licensing law, SLED will not license anyone who does not first
demonstrate the necessary skills and experience to competently perform the
duties of a licensed private investigator.
4. Mrs.
O’Shea works exclusively as a mitigation specialist. In each capital case, she is retained by the chief attorney and then
appointed by the presiding judge, who approves her funding and reviews her
invoices. Mrs. O’Shea tracks her time and submits invoices to the attorneys,
who submit them to the court for approval and then send them to the Office of Indigent
Defense for payment. She keeps a running invoice as she works on a case and
then finalizes it before submitting it for approval and payment. To be
appointed as a mitigation specialist in a capital case, one has to be chosen by
the defense attorney and the presiding judge has to be satisfied with the specialist’s
work and training. As such, there is extensive judicial oversight of mitigation
specialists’ work product.
5. When
Mrs. O’Shea first became a mitigation specialist, she sought licensure as a
private investigator, based in part upon the legal advice of Teresa Norris, Executive
Director of the Center for Capital Litigation, and based in part upon her
expectation that a private investigator license would be a good credential when
she had little prior experience as a mitigation specialist. Mrs. O’Shea now
avers that she no longer wishes to be licensed by SLED.
6.
This court takes judicial notice that the term “mitigation specialist”
appears on Westlaw in 474 cases (as of May 13, 2008).
The vast majority of these cases are criminal cases in varying procedural
postures: direct appeal, PCR or habeas corpus. This court also takes judicial
notice that the term “mitigation specialist” is a specific classification at
South Carolina’s Office of Indigent Defense. In fact, presenting evidence in mitigation is a
constitutionally mandated part of the death penalty defense. See Williams
v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396-99 (2000).
SLED File
Review
7. Because
Mrs. O’Shea could not afford to pay the license renewal fee, her private
investigator license expired on September 16, 2007. She had fallen down stairs
and broken her collarbone, as a result of which she could not drive or type.
She also was dizzy and lost all vision in her left eye within one month,
resulting in cataract surgery on both eyes. She received treatment without
health insurance, while her conditions rendered her unable to work. Upon her
failure to renew, SLED’s computer tagged her for file review to ensure that she
was not performing private investigator duties without a license. She refused
to allow SLED to review the files in her possession, asserting that they were
protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. She
subsequently paid the fee and submitted her license for renewal in late 2007.
However, SLED refused to renew her license based on her refusal to allow SLED
to review the files in her home office.
8. The
other way that files are tagged for SLED’s review is if a complaint is filed
with SLED regarding the investigator’s work or billing. That is not applicable
here. There have been no complaints about Mrs. O’Shea’s work or billing. Two
attorneys showed up in person to protect their files when the SLED investigator
attempted to review the files at her home office. One attorney demanded that all
files be turned over to his office immediately.
9. SLED
takes the position that its agents must have access to all files in the
possession of a private investigator to ensure that he or she is performing the
work for which the clients are being billed and that if an investigator refuses
to disclose any file, she must have something to hide. Mrs. O’Shea tried to
work with SLED to provide limited disclosure of certain records for accounting
purposes. When she asked one agent what records he wanted to review, the only
answer given was “all records.” Based on SLED’s response, she contacted the
lawyers on the respective cases, who all objected strongly to her disclosing
anything in the files to SLED. When she offered redacted records, SLED quit
communicating with her.
10. There
are six mitigation specialists practicing in South Carolina. Four or five are
licensed as private investigators by SLED. SLED has never tried to review files
in the possession of any other mitigation specialist.
Work
Product Doctrine
11. SLED’s
officers and agents who testified at the hearing were not aware of the duties
of a mitigation specialist and therefore did not give any deference to the
sensitivity of the work performed or deem it necessary to allow for protection
of the confidentiality of the files in Mrs. O’Shea’s possession.
12. The
files in Mrs. O’Shea’s possession belong to the attorneys for whom she works and
to the clients they represent. They are not her personal files.
13. As
a result of SLED’s insistence that Title 40, Chapter 18 gives it unfettered
access to all information in the files in her possession, Mrs. O’Shea has been
placed in a Catch-22. She faces the possibility of administrative sanctions
and criminal prosecution if she continues her chosen work as a mitigation
specialist without being licensed to operate a private investigation business.
And the attorneys certified in death penalty litigation have threatened to sue
her and to stop using her services if she opens their files for SLED’s review.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jurisdiction
is vested in this court under S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-130(C) (Supp. 2007) and
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq.
(2005 & Supp. 2007).
2. A
person who desires to operate a private investigation business in South
Carolina must apply for a private investigation license from SLED. S.C. Code
Ann. § 40-18-70(A) (Supp. 2007). As used in Chapter 18 of Title 40 of the
South Carolina Code, “private investigation business” means
engaging
in business or accepting employment to obtain or furnish information with reference
to the:
(1) identity, habits, conduct, business,
occupation, honesty, integrity, credibility, knowledge, trustworthiness,
efficiency, loyalty, activity, movement, whereabouts, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(2)
location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property;
(3) cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses,
accidents, damage, or injury to persons or property; or
(4) securing of evidence to be
used in a criminal or civil proceeding, or before a board, an administrative
agency, an officer, or investigating committee.
S.C. Code Ann. §
40-18-20(A) (Supp. 2007).
3. One
of the prerequisites to becoming licensed to operate a private investigation
business is at least three years’ experience as
one of the following: (a) a private
investigator employed by a licensed private investigation agency; (b) an investigator for a law firm, a government
agency, a private corporation, a nonprofit organization, or in a capacity that
SLED determines has provided the requisite investigative experience; or (c) a sworn officer with a federal, state, county,
or municipal law enforcement agency. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 40-18-70(E)(9) (Supp. 2007). Contrary to SLED’s assertion, the statute does
not require these classes of persons to be licensed to operate a private investigation
business. Rather, this section merely outlines the qualifications and types of
experience required for a person who desires a license to operate a private
investigation business. Experience in one of these professions is a prerequisite
to obtaining a license.
4. While
in the performance of their duties, attorneys are specifically exempt from
licensure under Title 40, Chapter 18. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-140(3) (Supp.
2007). That is, attorneys in practicing their profession are not required to
obtain a private investigation license even though they may perform some of the
same duties broadly outlined in the statutory definition of private
investigation. Attorneys rely extensively on their agents and office staff to
prepare for litigation. It naturally follows that an attorney’s agent is
similarly exempt from licensure. As a mitigation specialist, Mrs. O’Shea is an
agent of the attorneys performing work exclusively to be used in preparation
for capital litigation.
5. The ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in
Death Penalty Cases twice state that a mitigation specialist is an
essential component of the capital defense team. See Guidelines 4.1(A)(1) (“The defense team should consist of no fewer than two [qualified]
attorneys . . . and a mitigation specialist.”) & 10.4(C)(2)(a) (lead
counsel should assemble a defense team to include at least one mitigation
specialist), 31 Hofstra Law Rev. 913, 952, 959-960, 999-1000 (Feb. 2003). The
commentary to Guideline 4.1 at page 959-960 explains more fully the role
of a mitigation specialist.
Mitigation
specialists possess clinical and information-gathering skills and training that
most lawyers simply do not have. The mitigation specialist compiles a
comprehensive and well-documented psycho-social history of the client based on
an exhaustive investigation; analyzes the significance of the information in
terms of impact on development, including effect on personality and behavior;
finds mitigating themes in the client's life history; identifies the need for
expert assistance; assists in locating appropriate experts; provides social
history information to experts to enable them to conduct competent and reliable
evaluations; and works with the defense team and experts to develop a
comprehensive and cohesive case in mitigation. The
mitigation specialist often plays an important role as well in maintaining
close contact with the client and his family while the case is pending. . . . For all of these reasons the use of mitigation specialists
has become “part of the existing ‘standard of care”’ in capital cases, ensuring
“high quality investigation and preparation of the penalty phase.”
Several law
review articles explain a mitigation specialist’s role in the capital defense
team.
In general,
mitigation specialists are those “qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, or
training as a mental health or sociology professional to investigate, evaluate,
and present psychosocial and other mitigating evidence to persuade the
sentencing authority . . . that a death sentence is an inappropriate
punishment.” Mitigation specialists represent “a
relatively new area of expertise.” Though a
comparatively novel profession, an increasing number of defense attorneys are
employing mitigation specialists. Considering its embryonic state,
there is not a licensing authority that dictates how one becomes a mitigation
specialist. . . . Thus, the mitigation specialist's primary role is to provide the attorney with an
all-inclusive social history of the client, which includes identifying
significant, positive and negative, traumatic life events. . . includ[ing]
information on the parental figures in the client's life . . . [and] the social
factors that made the client different from siblings and other [sic] who may
have been subjected to the same environment.
Another essential role of the mitigation specialist is to
assist attorneys in communicating more efficiently with the defendant, his or
her family members, and other significant mitigation witnesses. Similarly, if not more importantly, mitigation
specialists are responsible for acting as liaisons between other mental health
experts (i.e., psychologists, psychiatrists) and defense counsel. When
appropriately utilized, mitigation experts can aid both counsel and other
mental health experts.
Besides their mental health and social work
responsibilities, mitigation specialists must contend with various legal
responsibilities. For instance, they are
typically required to write a court-worthy “formal report . . . that includes a
vivid and concise articulation of the biopsychosocial dynamics that shaped the
client's life and behavior.” Likewise, mitigation
specialists must always be prepared “to testify about their findings.”
Craig M. Cooley, Mapping the Monster’s Mental Health and Social History: Why Capital Defense
Attorneys and Public Defender Death Penalty Units Require the Services of
Mitigation Specialists, 30 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 23, 59-62 (Spring 2005). See
also Pamela Blume Leonard, A New Profession for an Old Need: Why a
Mitigation Specialist Must be Included on the Capital Defense Team, 31
Hofstra L. Rev. 1143 (Summer 2003); Daniel L. Payne, Building the Case for
Life: A Mitigation Specialist as a Necessity and a Matter of Right, 16 Cap.
Def. J. 43 (Fall 2003).
“Mitigation Specialist is a fairly new job title for this
role which underscores a long-standing need. It is
generally recognized that, in the complex litigation that today marks capital
trials, a mitigation specialist must be included in the capital defense team.” Roark Reed, Are Law Students
Capable Of Delivering A “Reasonable Investigation” As Required By The U.S.
Supreme Court In Capital Cases?, 13 L. & Bus. Rev. of the Americas 923
(Fall 2007). The mitigation specialist’s job is “discovering and then
communicating the complex human reality of the defendant’s personality in a
sympathetic way.” Russell Stetler, Column:
Capital Cases, Champion 61, 62 (March 2007). “[C]apital defense
team members giving undivided attention to the client’s life story have come to
be called mitigation specialists. Their duties and ethical obligations are
defined purely by the capital defense function. They are not part of any other
freestanding profession.” Id. (emphasis added).
6. The
only purpose for the mitigation specialist is to assist attorneys in the
defense of death penalty cases. As such, when Mrs. O’Shea engages in this work,
she acts as an agent for defense counsel and her performance is monitored by
extensive judicial oversight. Although her work for defense counsel is on a
case-by-case basis, she is no less an agent of defense counsel than a salaried
paralegal, investigator, or associate for purposes of Title 40, Chapter 18. It
stretches legislative intent to require defense counsel’s paralegal,
investigator, or associate to obtain a private investigation license under S.C.
Code Ann. § 40-18-70(A) (Supp. 2007). In fact, subsection (E)(9) implies that
a law firm investigator is not required to obtain a license under subsection (A).
Rather, a certain amount of experience as a law firm investigator qualifies a person for licensure if he or she desires to begin operating his or her own
private investigation business.
7. Because
she is acting as an agent of defense counsel while performing her duties as a
mitigation specialist, Mrs. O’Shea is exempt from the requirements of Chapter
18 of Title 40 pursuant to the attorney exemption under S.C. Code Ann. §
40-18-140(3) (Supp. 2007).
8. Even
if a mitigation specialist could not be considered exempt from the requirements
of Title 40, Chapter 18, the mitigation files in Mrs. O’Shea’s possession are
not subject to review by agents or employees of SLED because those files belong
to the attorneys with whom she works and, ultimately, to their clients. As
such, those files are protected by the attorney work-product privilege, also
known as the attorney work-product doctrine.
9. The United States Supreme Court has
held that the work-product doctrine is “a qualified privilege for certain
materials prepared by an attorney ‘acting for his client in anticipation of
litigation.’” The work-product privilege must extend to “material prepared by
agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself.” U.S.
v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-38, 95 S.Ct. 2160 (1975). In U.S. v.
Johnson, an annotated chronology prepared by a mitigation specialist that
was sent to a third party was seized by prison mailroom personnel and turned
over to the state. 378 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Iowa 2005). On the defense’s
motion for return of privileged material, the court held that the mitigation
specialist’s work product was protected within Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(2), since
it was prepared to assist in the mitigation case. See id.
The
court further held that inadvertent disclosure to a third party did not
automatically waive the work product privilege, in light of its central role in
the adversary system. However, the court noted that courts have disagreed on
this point and that most lower courts’ inquiry as to whether the privilege was
waived focused on whether the third party disclosure “substantially increases
the likelihood that an adversary will come into possession of the material.” Id. at 1047. SLED maintains that its internal policies prohibit employees of its
regulatory division from sharing privileged information with other divisions of
SLED and that, therefore, the privileged information in the files possessed by
Mrs. O’Shea will not be disclosed to anyone responsible for criminal
investigations or prosecutions. However, whether the discovery of privileged
information by SLED’s regulatory division substantially increases the
likelihood that the adversaries of Mrs. O’Shea’s clients will come into the
possession of the material is a question that I need not decide. The very potential
for waiver of the privilege militates against SLED’s review of the material.
Mrs. O’Shea’s disclosure of the material to a third party such as SLED could
likely waive the privilege and render the material discoverable by the government
in a criminal prosecution.
Even
if the potential for waiver of the work product privilege were not a concern,
the privilege acts in its own right as a limit on the investigative power of an
administrative agency. See Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 101
S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) (quoting U.S. v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707,
714, 100 S.Ct. 874, 879-880,63
L.Ed.2d 741 (1980) (stating “the obligation
imposed by a tax summons remains ‘subject to the traditional privileges and
limitations’” and holding that the work product doctrine applies to
Internal Revenue Service summons and reasoning that nothing in the language of
the IRS summons provisions or their legislative history suggests an intent on
the part of Congress to preclude application of the work-product doctrine)); Comm’n on Human Rights &
Opportunities v. Sullivan, 398 A.2d 776 (Conn. Super. App. 1978)
(explaining in dicta that, even with respect to business records, the
investigative power of an administrative agency is not unrestricted and stating
that the inquiry must (1) be reasonably necessary for performance of the
agency’s duties; (2) be germane to the subject matter of the investigation; (3)
not be unduly burdensome; and (4) not trespass upon any privilege).
10. This
court is cognizant that SLED may, at times, need to review files in the
possession of an unlicensed person to ensure that he or she is not operating a
private investigation business. However, if that person asserts that certain
files contain privileged information, SLED may not inspect them without first
obtaining a court order, based on probable cause, authorizing the inspection. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; S.C. Const. art. I, § 10 (prohibiting unreasonable
searches and seizures and requiring search warrants to be based on probable
cause).
11. Because
her work as a mitigation specialist does not require licensure under Title 40,
Chapter 18, there is no need for SLED to review the files in her possession to
ensure that she is not operating a private investigation business without a
license.
ORDER
Mrs.
O’Shea as a court appointed mitigation specialist on death penalty cases who
falls within the attorney exemption as the attorneys’ agent need not be
licensed as a private investigator. As an independent ground, the files in her
possession are not subject to SLED’s review because they are protected by the
work product doctrine.
THEREFORE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SLED shall not require Petitioner Margaret O’Shea
to obtain licensure under Title 40, Chapter 18 of the South Carolina Code in
order for her to continue her work as a mitigation specialist.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLED shall not be allowed to inspect the files in
Mrs. O’Shea’s possession.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 4, 2008 JOHN
D. GEATHERS
Columbia, South Carolina Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
|