A U.S. prosecutor who quit the Justice Department after its leaders intervened in Roger Stone’s sentencing is headed to private practice — after helping D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) overhaul how his office might prosecute political corruption in Washington.

Former career prosecutor Jonathan I. Kravis is joining Munger, Tolles & Olson, an elite, California-based law firm whose Washington office was opened in 2016 by former Obama solicitor general Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

“Jonathan is exactly the kind of lawyer that best represents what Munger Tolles is all about — he’s highly skilled in the profession and a person of utmost integrity,” Verrilli said. “We also think he’s going to be a fantastic mentor for our aspiring trial lawyers.”

In an interview, Verrilli — who is defending the Affordable Care Act for the House of Representatives and Democratic-led states in a current case at the Supreme Court — said Munger Tolles has “a world-class appellate practice” and “a world-class trial practice” based in California. Verrilli said Kravis will help build out a comparable trial shop in its 20-lawyer D.C. office. He and Kravis briefly overlapped in the Obama White House in 2010 when Verrilli served as a senior and deputy counsel and Kravis as associate counsel.

Meanwhile, Racine said last week that Kravis completed a three-month assignment to recommend ways to overhaul how the District government battles corruption. Racine and Kravis said cases have gone largely unenforced at the local level, where only federal prosecutors in the nation’s capital can bring felony cases and have many other priorities.

Racine, the first elected local attorney general in the heavily Democratic city, is running for a third term and has vowed to address that, targeting campaign finance violations, bribery, fraud and misuse of government resources.

“The District is the only place in the United States where residents must rely exclusively on the federal government to decide which local anti-corruption laws are enforced and which are not,” Racine said in a statement Thursday. “We need a locally-accountable prosecutor to investigate and charge local offenses that impact the integrity of government services and undermine public trust.”

The activities of recent Justice Department alumni rarely draw headlines, but Kravis’s profile has risen this year as critics accuse Attorney General William P. Barr and the Trump administration of intervening in and politicizing the U.S. attorney offices for Washington and Manhattan. Both offices have been handling multiple investigations of interest to President Trump.

On Saturday, Barr announced that Trump fired the top federal prosecutor in New York, Geoffrey Berman, ending a standoff over the leadership of an office managing a probe into Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, among others.

Kravis’s most recent trial victory came in another such case, the November conviction of Stone, a political confidant of President Trump and GOP consultant. A jury found Stone guilty of lying to Congress in a House investigation of the Trump campaign’s efforts in 2016 to learn of Democratic emails hacked by Russia and leaked by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. Barr in February overruled front-line prosecutors and softened their sentencing recommendation, prompting all four to quit the case. Kravis was the only one who resigned from the department entirely.

“I left a job I loved because I believed the department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in one of my cases,” Kravis wrote in an opinion article after Barr decided in May to drop the prosecution of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn. Like Stone, the former three-star general — who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador — was convicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference in the election.

In both cases, Kravis said, “The department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law.”

Barr has said he was “doing the law’s bidding” to correct FBI misconduct in Flynn’s case, and that he was not influenced by Trump in modifying a sentencing recommendation that was adopted by a judge.

Still in his op-ed, Kravis, 42, a 10-year federal corruption prosecutor whose other trial victories include the 2016 conviction of former congressman Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) on racketeering-related charges, said prosecuting crime “is hard, and it becomes even harder when witnesses and jurors start to believe that the Justice Department’s handling of these cases is infected by politics.”

D.C. authorities have limited jurisdiction to investigate government officials. Racine has taken on the president, however, subpoenaing Trump’s inaugural committee records and coordinating lawsuits by Democratic colleagues in the states suing the administration’s immigration and health care polices. Racine, president-elect of the National Association of Attorneys General, also filed suit with Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D), accusing Trump of unconstitutionally profiting from foreign-sourced profits at the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington.

Most recently, Racine’s office is investigating the use of funds from a local nonprofit by Michael Pack, who has led a controversial purge of U.S.-funded agencies that produce news and information for international audiences as Trump’s choice to lead the Voice of America.

In an interview, Kravis said the D.C. proposed anti-corruption unit is not about Trump or any other single public official, but closing a law enforcement gap to benefit the city’s 705,000 residents, regardless of whoever is in local office or the White House. It will be 2021 before the new unit brings charges and shows results, he added, depending on how swiftly and strongly the D.C. Council acts to approve the changes.

“It’s a project about combating public corruption within the District of Columbia, not about one particular politician,” Kravis said. “Part of that is building relationships” with the D.C. inspector general, ethics and campaign finance overseers, and the U.S. attorney, he said.

The District government has struggled with waste and fraud long before its longest-serving lawmaker, Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), resigned in January rather than be expelled amid allegations that he misused his office to help his private consulting clients. Evans was also accused of failing to disclose a conflict of interest when paid by a law firm involved in seeking city approval for a $6.8 billion merger that created the nation’s largest publicly traded utility.

D.C. agencies in charge of regulating campaign finance, ethics and government accountability laws are weak and decentralized, critics say. And the U.S. attorney’s office necessarily prioritizes federal corruption and national and international cases, while attention to District offenses ebbs and flows depending on personnel, Kravis said.

When U.S. prosecutors have launched major District corruption cases, their role has been controversial. Cases include the long federal pursuit of late former mayor Marion S. Barry — who was reelected to the D.C. Council after being convicted of federal cocaine possession in 1990 — through the bungled investigation of former mayor and current Ward 7 council member Vincent C. Gray (D), which helped current mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) secure the Democratic nomination in 2014.

“Sometimes it is just better to have a prosecutor’s office looking at public corruption offenses that is headed by a locally elected official,” Kravis said. “Having another prosecutor that is also doing that work can help coalesce those efforts. Sometime those offenses are local, not federal crimes.”

Kravis’s work will help the D.C. Council decide on new laws and funding for a new public corruption unit, Racine said. The office can prosecute campaign finance violations and certain election-related offenses under existing authority, Kravis said, such as submitting false referendum or recall petitions. It also can sue contractors who defraud the D.C. government, such as by bribing a local official to make payments using false invoices.

Racine is asking the D.C. Council for authority to criminally charge D.C. code violations, such as anti-conflict of interest and kickback statutes. Congress can pass laws allowing the office to charge bribery.

Kravis cited the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last month overturning the “Bridgegate” fraud convictions of two of former New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s political allies. They were found guilty of plotting in 2013 to snarl traffic on the George Washington Bridge, the nation’s busiest, to retaliate against a political rival.

While corrupt and an abuse of power, the scheme did not seek money or property so could not be charged under U.S. fraud charges, judges said, continuing a line of rulings reining in federal anti-corruption efforts.

“Sometimes there is corrupt conduct out there that fits a local statute, but doesn’t fit a federal statute,” Kravis said. “It’s not about, either the U.S. or the D.C. attorneys office. Neither one is better than the other. . . . The idea is it’s important for all these reasons to have both offices doing this type of work.”