May 11,2011
REceIVED
MAY! 2 2011
Robert Seaver
We have reviewed all the material submitted in connection with your complaint
regarding Tracy P. Reeve and several of her colleagues at the City of Portland attorney's
office. While you named several
The Client Assistance Office (CAO) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding
Oregon lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5, CAO determines whether there is
suffcient evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred
warranting a referral to Disciplinary Counsel's Office for further investigation. Misconduct
means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern
lawyer conduct in Oregon.
You contend that Ms. Reeve engaged in misconduct by accepting evidence important
to a pending lawsuit. It is our understanding that various plaintiffs sued the City of Portland
and individuals for actions arising out of a protest. One of the key individual defendants
was then Sergeant Mark Kruger (Kruger), who the plaintiffs believed to be a Nazi
sympathizer. Plaintiffs believed that establishing Kruger to be a Nazi sympathizer was
critical to proving their case.
During the litigation, Kruger removed a plaque he and you had placed in Rocky
Butte. I understand that there may have been a plaque with five plastic name plates, but for
convenience I wil refer to the evidence as the plaque. Kruger brought the plaque to Ms.
Reeve, who put it in the case fie for safekeeping. You contend that it was misconduct for
Ms. Reeve to receive the plaque and not produce it to the plaintiffs as requested in
discovery.
Because your concerns implicated our rules, we asked Ms. Reeve for her account.
She explained that Kruger did bring her the plaque. However, she contends that she was
unaware of the existence of the plaque prior to that and that she
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, PO Box 231935, Tigard, Oregon 97281-1935
www.osbar.org
Robert Seaver
May 11,2011
Page 2
remove it, nor did she improperly withhold it from the plaintiffs. Ms. Reeve contends that
the issue of the plaque and Kruger's Nazi sympathies was considered in the discovery
proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied plaintiffs' motion, finding it was unlikely to lead
to admissible evidence.
1.2(c) prohibits lawyers from counseling a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct the
lawyer knows is ilegaL.
briefed by both plaintiffs and defendants, Judge Ancer Haggerty issued an order that
defendants need not produce additional materials responsive to Requests #30, 33, 34 and
36, as they were not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As i understand
the discovery process, Request #34 and related Requests were made to obtain evidence
related to whether Kruger was a Nazi sympathizer. The court also granted defendants'
motion for a protective order barring further inquiry into Kruger's interest in Nazism. Since
the court determined that further discovery involving Kruger's Nazi sympathizer
tendencies would not lead to admissible evidence or was barred, it could not have been a
crime for Kruger to remove the plaque. It's as if he had done nothing worse than throw
away the clothes he wore when he took down the plaque. That is, the clothes may have
been involved in the act, but they were not evidence relevant to the pending lawsuit.
Further, if it was not criminal for Kruger to remove the plaque, Ms. Reeve could not have
assisted Kruger in committing a crime or have engaged in a criminal act herself.
We understand that the plaintiffs (and you) disagree as to whether the plaque was
relevant evidence. However, the bar does not have the authority to make that
determination, the court does. The plaintiffs were free to appeal that decision, but
apparently chose not to. While the issue was pending, Ms. Reeve had every right to hold
onto the plaque. Until or unless the court decided otherwise in the discovery dispute, Ms.
Reeve, we make the same finding for the other lawyers named. Enclosed are copies of
enclosures from Ms. Reeve's March 18, 2011 letter that may have been inadvertently
omitted from the copies sent to you.
Robert Seaver
May 11, 2011
Page 3
Counsel, provided we receive your request for review in writing on or before June 1, 2011.
The decision of General Counsel is finaL.
SAM/jmm
Enclosure
cc: Tracy Pool Reeve, Attorney at Law
02;