Professional Integrity & Ethics

In early 2023, The Oregonian newspaper published an article discussing my role as a consultant to the Oregon Federal Public Defender’s Office and potential expert witness in a high-profile criminal wire fraud case brought by the Oregon U.S. Attorney's Office (U.S. v. Robert Jesenik (3:20-cr-00228-SI). While the reporting attracted attention, several key facts were omitted or misstated. This statement regarding my professional ethics  and integrity provides additional context.

Clarifying the Record

  • Throughout my career, I have maintained the highest professional and ethical standards. Having served as a public official for over 18 years, I know that public service is a public trust. I also know that upholding that trust requires strict compliance with both the letter and the spirit of Oregon’s ethics laws—including the duty to not use one’s official position for personal gain and the duty to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest when taking official action. 

  • I took my professional and ethical duties as a public official very seriously. I continue to uphold the same ethical standards as a licensed attorney and former public official. I am proud of my reputation as an ethical, fair, knowledgeable, and principled professional.

  • In April 2021, I was informally asked by an Oregon attorney for the names of securities attorneys that could serve as a consultant and expert witness in a criminal case. In May 2021, the attorney inquired whether I was interested in serving in that role. I did not solicit the engagement.

  • Before entering into the consulting arrangment, I conducted a thorough review of the Oregon's ethics laws, DCBS’s internal policies, and guidance from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC). I also consulted five current and former DCBS employees. I concluded based on that review and those conversations that the limited outside consulting would not violate the Oregon ethics laws. 

  • In May 2021, I disclosed the potential engagement in detail to my managers at DCBS via email and received no objection or follow-up. I reasonably understood this to mean that there were no concerns. I would have declined the engagement or resigned from DCBS had DCBS raised any concerns that could not be resolved.

  • In December 2022, DCBS requested an opinion from the OGEC whether my conduct violated the Oregon ethics laws. In January 2023, OGEC staff issued a written opinion concluding that my conduct likely did not violate Oregon ethics laws.

  • In April 2023, DCBS opened an internal investigation into whether my conduct violated DCBS's internal ethics and conflict of interest policy. The investigation concluded that my conduct did not violate DCBS’s policy, that I was truthful, forthcoming during the investigation, and that I did not use confidential information or agency resources when conducting the outside consulting work.

  • At all times I acted in a manner that was consistent with OGEC guidance and with the practices of other public officials — including other officials at DCBS — who engaged in outside professional activities. I had no involvement in any regulatory matters concerning the company at issue. I did not investigate, review, or take part in any action related to the defendant on behalf of DCBS.

My Role as a Testifying and Consulting Expert:

I provide impartial expert analysis in civil, administrative, and criminal cases. I have testified for both the prosecution and the defense, and my role is to educate fact-finders—not to advocate for any party or outcome. My work is grounded in a neutral and objective analysis of the law and the facts.

If you have questions or would like more information or wish to see supporting documentation, please contact me directly.