Professional Integrity & Ethics
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.
As an experienced attorney with over 18 years in public service, I also know that serving as a public official is a public trust. I also understand that upholding that trust requires strict compliance with both the letter and the spirit of Oregon’s ethics laws—including the duty to avoid using one’s official position for personal gain and the duty to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest in connection with official actions. Throughout my career, I have maintained the highest ethical standards and am proud of my reputation as an ethical, fair, knowledgeable, and principled practitioner.
In early 2023, an article that was published in The Oregonian newspaper discussed 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 provides additional context.
Clarifying the Record
My outside consulting services were conducted with full transparency and in compliance with all applicable state ethics laws, and internal policies of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS).
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.
In May 2021, I careful review of applicable Oregons ethics laws, DCBS’s internal policies, and guidance from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC). I also solicited guidance from 5 current and former employees at DCBS. I concluded based on that review and those conversations that the limited outside consulting would not violate the Oregon ethics laws.
I disclosed the potential engagement in detail to my managers at DCBS via email in May 2021 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 concerns that could not be addressed.
In December 2022, DCBS requested an interpretation from the OGEC whether my conduct violated the Oregon ethics laws. In January 2023, the staff of the OGEC issued a staff 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 my 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 work. 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 company on behalf of DCBS.
If you have questions or would like more information or wish to see supporting documentation, please contact me directly through the Contact page.