In response to a story reported by OPB, the Oregon State Bar has received two complaints about the actions of Ammon Bundy’s attorneys.
“This complaint is at the earliest stage of the investigation,” said Kateri Walsh, a spokeswoman with the Oregon State Bar.
“Anyone can complain about anything,” she said.
The complaints questioned whether Bundy’s Eugene-based attorneys, Lissa Casey and Mike Arnold, violated bar ethics when Casey visited the refuge last month. Specifically, that action could be a violation of section 7.3 of the bar rules, which prohibits attorneys from soliciting clients by phone, electronic contact or in person.
Casey said she was providing pro bono legal services to the militants occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Since the militant leaders were arrested Jan. 26, the firm has started to raise money for Bundy’s defense through a crowdfunding campaign.
“We entirely expected that people who disagree with Ammon would complain to the bar, due to politics or due to irresponsible reporting,” Arnold said in a statement Monday.
“We acted entirely consistently with what the rules of professional conduct both permit and encourage,” he said.
Portland-based legal ethics attorney Peter Jarvis, a partner at the firm Holland & Knight, said he would represent the Arnold law firm if the bar complaint process continues.
One of the complaints, filed anonymously, named Casey. The other, filed by a Eugene woman, named both Arnold and Casey.
When the bar receives a complaint, it first screens the challenge to see if an actual rule has been violated.
Often, Walsh said, the bar will ask the attorneys named in the complaint to respond so the bar can get their perspective on the case.
After that, the bar determines whether there’s enough merit in the complaint to move forward with a formal investigation.
“At this particular stage, there’s not been a finding of misconduct,” Walsh said regarding the complaints against Arnold and Casey. “There has not in fact been a finding that it is worthy of forwarding to disciplinary counsel’s office.”
Jarvis said his client did nothing wrong, and that all the facts had not been presented in the first OPB story.
“The contact with Bundy was in the form of a letter, with the word ‘advertising materials,’ prominently displayed,” Jarvis said. “It was delivered by lawyers at the site.”
Both Jarvis and Arnold declined OPB's request for a copy of that letter, which both men described as an “advertisement." However, Arnold read a portion of it to a reporter at the Oregonian.
“The purpose of this letter is to request a meeting with you to discuss whether the attorneys of Arnold Law may be of any assistance to you on a pro bono basis in finding a resolution to the situation in Harney County, Oregon,” the letter reportedly stated.
Arnold told the newspaper that Bundy gave him permission to read the advertisement publicly.
Jarvis said the group made the five-hour trip to the refuge with the sole intention of handing the advertisement to Bundy.
“They met for about five minutes,” Jarvis said.
Copyright 2016 Oregon Public Broadcasting