A recent revelation involving employees of one of Oregon’s largest public defense law firms has sparked controversy and further highlights ongoing tensions between defense attorneys and law enforcement in Washington County.
The litigation centers around a group text chat aptly named “F*** da police”—a title reflecting sentiments against police brutality, made famous by N.W.A in their iconic 1989 song.
The group chat was brought to public attention in discrimination lawsuits filed by two former public defenders, Alyne Sanchez and Chloé Clay, both of whom are women of color.
Their lawsuits, which are pending and have been consolidated, assert mistreatment from members of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.
The mission of Sanchez, who identifies as Latina, was marred when sheriff’s deputies allegedly treated her as an intruder within the courthouse.
She reported an instance where her professional identity was questioned, leading her to feel unwelcome and targeted in a space where she should have been respected as an attorney.
Clay, on the other hand, who is Black, highlighted a disturbing incident where a sheriff’s office employee delayed and denied her access to a public courtroom, while allowing white attorneys to enter unimpeded.
As both women highlight experiences of discrimination, court filings have requested, among other things, “the entire group text thread” of the aptly named chat.
This request came from attorneys representing Washington County, who sought to see all communications and participant identities within the group.
A screenshot unveiled revealed at least ten participants in the chat, denoted by a pig emoji alongside the crude title, further demonstrating the underlying frustrations among public defenders regarding law enforcement practices.
Clara Butler, one of the public defenders and a participant in the chat, acknowledged in a deposition that she was unaware of who initiated the group chat, speculating that it emerged before 2022.
Noting that the participants frequently shift according to staff changes at the Metropolitan Public Defender’s office, Butler stated that most non-management attorneys in the Hillsboro office were part of the conversation.
Sanchez and Clay were confirmed as participants based on the provided transcript.
In an order issued earlier this month, a circuit judge mandated that Sanchez provide the entirety of the text string, albeit with certain details allowed to be redacted.
The scrutiny faced by Sanchez and Clay also pertains to similar allegations against a sheriff’s deputy, David Lyle, who reportedly confronted Sanchez, blocking her from courtroom access while allowing white colleagues entry.
Sanchez detailed a troubling incident from 2023, wherein far-right Proud Boys were present in a courtroom, hurling racist remarks toward her without any intervention from nearby law enforcement.
Difficulty continued for Clay as her lawsuit describes a time when Lyle forced her outside upon arrival at the courtroom.
Only after being identified as an attorney by an interpreter was she permitted to enter, leaving her feeling humiliated and singled out based on her race.
Noah Horst, representing Clay, argued that the attention on the group text detracts from the serious issue of discrimination that his client faced.
He asserted that the central focus should remain on the alleged discriminatory practices of Deputy Lyle rather than a private text thread named after a protest song.
The suitability of the group text’s title has also drawn criticism, with experts questioning the professionalism expected from attorneys associated with the Oregon State Bar.
Legal scholar and Portland attorney Jack Orchard expressed concerns, suggesting that such communications would likely raise ethical questions if viewed by the chief justice of the Oregon Supreme Court.
Metropolitan Public Defender’s executive director, Carl Macpherson, remarked that the organization was unaware of the existence or naming of the group text until the civil lawsuits emerged.
He emphasized that the chats were conducted on personal devices, signifying that they cannot impose censorship on employee communications outside professional environments.
The fallout from this situation showcases the complicated dynamics between public defenders and law enforcement, especially regarding the treatment and perception of attorneys who belong to minority groups.
As the legal battles unfold, all eyes will be on how these allegations are resolved, both at the courthouse and within the broader community discourse on equity in the justice system.
Looking ahead, the impending trial is set for next month, when these serious allegations will undergo scrutiny in the courtroom, bringing forth questions regarding accountability and justice for all parties involved.
image source from：https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2025/04/crudely-named-anti-police-chat-group-revealed-in-public-defender-lawsuit-over-deputy-treatment.html
