 STEPHANIE TUCKER |
Here at the Rogue Desk, our prism on the outside world alternately bleeds colors of disgust, humor, outrage and disdain. Then along comes a case like
Dave Peters, where all we can do is shake our head.
Peters, you see, was a star prosecutor for the Multnomah County District Attorney's office: hardworking, persuasive, charismatic and brilliant--until his name turned up in a drug dealer's little black book in 1997. One thing led to another, and Peters admitted to repeated encounters with cocaine.
He resigned and, after expressing remorse for his actions, was for a time suspended from the practice of law by the Oregon State Bar. He changed sides to become a defense lawyer, earning a reputation as the kind of advocate you want on your side.
Two weeks ago, Peters was once again suspended by the bar--and this time, it may be harder for him to explain away.
His more recent offense is not drugs but sex. Specifically, sex with a client--for lawyers, a big ethical faux pas. In 2001, he had a sexual relationship with a repeat drug offender, Stephanie Tucker, whom he was representing on a probation-violation charge.
Also covered in the bar complaint is Peters' admission to a 2002 sexual relationship with another client, Rachel Schaeffer, who has a lengthy history of arrests for drug- and prostitution-related activity; Peters, however, says the sex occurred after he stopped representing her.
According to Peters, who says he's been in counseling for the past two years, his sexual relationship with Tucker was a result of emotional problems.
Peters' attorney, Stephen Houze, says Peters has "recognized the issues" that led to the conduct. Houze declined to say what those issues were but says he feels "very positive" about his client's chances of being reinstated.
Peters' suspension runs through late June and requires him to convince the bar that he has the "good moral character" and "general fitness to practice law" necessary for reinstatement.
Here at Rogue Central, it seems like Peters has lacked something even more important: common sense.
.nar.jpg)
Peters has had the opportunity to change his behavior by changing his environment. He hasn't, and can continue to excuse away his conduct. It's not that he can't differentiate between good and bad conduct, it's that he won't. His reasoning skills in knowing how to successfully pick and choose the good from the bad and to see where he can really benefit from making sound choices that will really make a positive difference? Not there, or just selective stupidity? He could have rebuilt the place where he lives long ago in the way he selects the people who could help him throughout, but he didn't. In short, he is his own worst enemy; when good opportunity knocks, he kicks it into the trash can. No, his personal choices do affect his professional ones, and that is not good. He has lost far more than he has gained.