A Hood River County prosecutor is suing her boss for signing her name on a court filing to revoke a woman’s probation though she adamantly opposed the action.

District Attorney Carrie Rasmussen had signed “For Catherine Walsh” – a deputy district attorney in her office – on a motion filed in court to revoke a woman’s probation.

It was for a woman who reported that she had been sexually assaulted but also admitted to drinking at the time of the attack. The woman had been ordered not to consume alcohol or drugs while on probation in another case.

Walsh’s whistleblower suit alleges Rasmussen used Walsh’s name, bar number and electronic signature on the court filing on March 2, 2023 without her knowledge or consent and then retaliated against Walsh for reporting the alleged unlawful practice.

“I felt personally violated,” Walsh wrote in a separate state bar complaint against Rasmussen. “And I fear that while working under her, I will need to practice extreme diligence to ensure she does not use my identity in such a way again.”

In an initial email response to Walsh, Rasmussen wrote that she “signed without thinking” and was in a rush because she was concerned the woman on probation could die of alcohol poisoning.

Rasmussen said she handled the case because Walsh was out of the office at a work-related conference at the time and she had “urgent concerns” about the defendant’s welfare, according to Rasmussen’s response to the bar complaint. Rasmussen wrote that the woman who filed the sexual assault complaint had previously “made up outrageous stories when she was extremely intoxicated,” and that a detective had shared with her that he and others were concerned for the woman’s welfare and “feared imminent alcohol poisoning” given evidence found at the scene. The detective urged the court filing to get the woman back into custody and into treatment, Rasmussen wrote to the bar.

After learning of Walsh’s concerns, Rasmussen said she had the probation violation case refiled under her own name.

“I have often signed documents for my deputies, so I do not agree that this situation was improper,” Rasmussen initially wrote to the bar in May 2023.

Walsh said it took up to five days for the change to be made in the court’s record.

Walsh said her boss knew that she was opposed to the probation revocation because they had discussed it during a lunch in February 2023.

Rasmussen had asked Walsh then for her opinion about the “appropriateness of filing a probation violation” against a sexual assault victim who had volunteered she had been drinking, according to Walsh’s suit. Rasmussen didn’t identify a defendant or name the specific case.

Walsh said she made it clear that she didn’t think it was appropriate to use information from a sexual assault report against the victim, even if she had violated her probation.

Less than a month later, Walsh learned from a defense lawyer that her office had taken action to try to revoke probation in one of her cases involving the exact same scenario.

Walsh looked up the case and was shocked to see that Rasmussen had filed a court affidavit in Walsh’s name and applied Walsh’s electronic signature on a letter to the defendant.

The affidavit and motion were also notarized, suggesting Walsh had reviewed the associated police report, according to the suit.

Walsh said she believed Rasmussen made a false statement in court by essentially using her identity without her approval, according to the suit.

Walsh reported the alleged breach to the county’s human resources department. The human resources director recommended Walsh file a complaint with the state bar. Walsh then sought guidance from a bar ethics adviser, who told her that the circumstances required a mandatory report of possible ethical violations to the bar, according to the suit.

Once Walsh filed a complaint, she contends Rasmussen ostracized her at work, no longer talked to her directly but communicated through the chief deputy or office staff, limited her training opportunities and case assignments.

Then in July 2023, Rasmussen revoked Walsh’s option to work remotely on approved days, which hadn’t been a problem in the past, the suit says.

The remote work was important to Walsh, who was caring for a family member who periodically needed medical attention, according to Walsh’s lawyer, Ashley R. Cadotte.

Walsh complained to the county human resources director of retaliation, but alleges the county did little to protect her, contending it didn’t have authority over Rasmussen, an elected official considered a state employee, her suit says.

This past February, after Walsh filed a notice to sue the county and the district attorney, she said she was put on paid leave while an outside investigator began an inquiry into her allegations.

The county’s hired investigator, Lisa Knight Davies, conducted a workplace investigation limited to Walsh’s retaliation allegation tied to her bar complaint.

In Davies’ April report, she found evidence that Rasmussen had on occasion asked others to deliver messages or assignments to Walsh instead of talking with her directly and evidence that Rasmussen isolated Walsh but not that she restricted case assignments or work opportunities.

The outside investigator also found evidence that Rasmussen treated Walsh’s request for remote work differently than others, noting that Rasmussen responded immediately to the request by sending Walsh and the county administrator two judicial opinions concerning a district attorney’s authority over the hiring, direction of work and firing of deputy district attorneys, her report said.

“It is unclear as to why she treated this specific request differently, but it does suggest an adverse motive,” Davies’ report said.

The outside investigator also documented “mutual disrespect exhibited by both Ms. Walsh and Ms. Rasmussen” and a clear communication breakdown between the two.

The district attorney’s motion to revoke the woman’s probation is still pending in court, yet the woman was connected to treatment, according to records filed with the state bar.

The state bar’s disciplinary counsel, Courtney C. Dippel, who is reviewing Walsh’s bar complaint, last week asked Rasmussen again to respond to three questions that she hadn’t answered in her prior responses to the bar.

Dippel asked whether Walsh’s account was accurate -- that she had told Rasmussen at the lunch that she was opposed to revoking probation for someone in the same scenario.

Rasmussen wrote back, “I do not specifically recall Ms. Walsh stating her opposition to this particular case, but I’m sure she probably did.” She wrote that their luncheon conversation was “a general one,” that she discussed different scenarios with Walsh, and told Walsh there needs to be a prosecutorial response if someone is endangering themselves or others. Rasmussen said she told Walsh that mitigating information could be considered later when resolving such a case.

“I recall Ms. Walsh being uncomfortable about making a prosecutorial decision without considering subjective factors at the outset,” Rasmussen wrote.

Second, Dippel asked Rasmussen, “What legal authority did you have to swear out an affidavit on behalf of another person? Please provide any such legal authority.”

Rasmussen acknowledged she had none.

“I do not know of any legal authority and acknowledged my mistake immediately the next morning when I said that I signed without thinking and asked staff to immediately file it in my name,” Rasmussen wrote. “I took the additional step of contacting the defense attorney that morning and explaining that this is my case and my decision and that all discussions should happen with me.”

Rasmussen added in her response to the bar last week, “I know of no similar affidavits, and this is the only time I know of this error happening. It certainly has not happened again.”

Third, Dippel asked Rasmussen if the person who notarized the court filing was a notary from the district attorney’s office.

Rasmussen replied that the notary is employed in her office, “...and this scenario has never happened before in my memory. We have had discussions about this instance since this has happened, and I am confident this will never happen again.”

Rasmussen said Tuesday she couldn’t comment on the allegations, noting they’re now part of pending litigation. She referred questions to the Oregon Department of Justice.

Roy Kaufmann, spokesperson for the state Justice Department, said, “We are reviewing the matter.”

Rasmussen didn’t seek reelection this year, instead supporting Wasco County District Attorney Matthew Ellis for the job, who won the uncontested race in the May election. She has served as district attorney since early January 2021, after working as a deputy district attorney in the county since 2005.

Walsh, who was hired as a deputy district attorney in the Hood River County office in May 2022, continues to work in the office. She still hasn’t been approved for remote work, despite a county recommendation that she be allowed to do so, her lawyer said.

The suit, filed in Hood River County Circuit Court, seeks up to $900,000 in damages for significant emotional distress and damage to her reputation.

-- Maxine Bernstein covers federal court and criminal justice. Reach her at 503-221-8212, mbernstein@oregonian.com, follow her on X @maxoregonian, or on LinkedIn.

Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.