BRYANT, District Judge.
Defendant moves this Court for an order directing the United States attorney to cease summoning witnesses to his office and paying them twenty dollars for interviews there. The United States attorney denies neither the existence of the practices nor the fact that they are being used in this case. The following is the "summons" sent by the United States attorney to prospective witnesses:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
United States Court House 3rd & Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
You are hereby notified to appear as a witness at the United States Attorney's Office, on the Third Floor of the United States Court House, at Third Street and John Marshall Place, on Constitution Avenue, N.W., on , to assist in the preparation for trial of the case of United States v. .
You should contact and confer with the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of this case.
Assistant United States Attorney
783-5700, Ext. Telephone Number
If the Assistant cannot be located, please see one of the secretarial employees in , Room Number, extension .
In opposition to the motion the United States attorney takes the position that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested order, particularly that such an order would amount to an unwarranted judicial incursion into the operations of the United States attorney's office, operations which of necessity involve a high degree of discretion.
The government's argument falls wide of the mark. The fact is that the Court has pending before it a criminal case. The United States attorney, as the officer authorized to conduct a prosecution before this Court, is, in respect to the acts relating to the prosecution, subject to the proper exertion of the disciplinary powers of the court, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355, 51 S. Ct. 153, 75 L. Ed. 374 (1931). In discussing a motion to compel the United States attorney to return allegedly illegally seized records, Judge Hough said half a century ago in language that has been much quoted since:
"Attorneys are officers of the court, and the United States attorney does not by taking office escape from this species of professional discipline. Thus power to entertain this motion depends on the fact that the party proceeded against is an attorney, not that he is an official known as the United States attorney." United States v. Maresca, 266 F. 713, 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1920).
The same point has been made recently by our own court of appeals speaking through Judge, now Chief Justice, Burger, in Newman v. United States, 127 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 382 F.2d 479 (1967), a case cited to us by the government:
"An attorney for the United States, as any other attorney, however, appears in a dual role. He is at once an officer of the court and the agent and attorney for a client; in the first capacity he is responsible to the Court for the manner of his conduct of a case, i.e., his demeanor, deportment and ethical conduct; * * *" 127 U.S. App. D.C. at 265, 382 F.2d at 481.