# In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Lasswell

> Oregon Supreme Court · December 6, 1983 · 296 Or. 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588062

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of WILLIAM L. LASSWELL, Accused
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 6, 1983
- **Citations:** 296 Or. 121; 673 P.2d 855; 1983 Ore. LEXIS 1769
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Roberts
- **Judges:** Campbell, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588062

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, J.,
dissenting.
I write separately to dissent because I believe the majority opinion will result in undesirable consequences.
The majority, in requiring that a lawyer must act “with indifference” before violating DR 7-107(B)(5) and (6), has gone too far in my opinion in weighing free speech against a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Under the majority opinion only the most blatant behavior on the part of prosecutors will require disciplinary action.
*137 A prosecutor has, by the very nature of the job, a responsibility to protect the integrity of trials. Therefore, a test that hinges on whether the prosecutor “knows or is bound to know” that his acts “pose a serious and imminent threat to the process” protects both the prosecutor’s freedom of speech and defendants’ right to a fair trial.
I respectfully dissent. I join in the separate dissenting opinion of Campbell, J.
Campbell, J., concurs with this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588062. Public record. Not legal advice.