Fears Expressed Over Packwood Diaries : Ethics: Unidentified prominent woman is worried that certain disclosures may violate her right to privacy. She seeks postponement of Senate debate.

The lawyer for an unidentified but nationally prominent woman said Friday that his client fears she may be mentioned in Sen. Bob Packwood’s private diaries and wants any references to her relationship with him deleted if the papers are to be surrendered to the Senate Ethics Committee.

In an example of one of the embarrassing dilemmas the committee’s confrontation with Packwood is likely to create for lawmakers, the attorney for a woman identified only as “Mrs. Jane Doe” appealed for a postponement of Senate debate scheduled for Monday.

Senators are expected to authorize the Ethics Committee to go to court to force Packwood to honor its subpoena for the diaries, which contain references to the sex lives of lawmakers and other prominent people.

“She is an individual who is prominent within the country and who has a family and is now married,” said Virginia lawyer Mark B. Sandground of his client. He added that her right to privacy would be violated if any references in the diaries to her former relationship with Packwood are leaked.

“Production of these personal diaries and the material both private and irrelevant” to the committee’s investigation of Packwood’s alleged sexual misconduct “might cause irreparable damage to the reputation of my client and others similarly situated,” Sandground said in a letter sent to the Ethics Committee.

As they relate to his client, the diaries may include “material of an intimate nature” involving “the consensual sexual activities of Sen. Packwood,” Sandground wrote. He added that his client is hoping that, if Packwood is compelled to surrender the diaries, an “independent and neutral examiner” could be appointed to review the journals and mask out material whose disclosure could result “in the ruin of the reputation of innocent parties, their families and friends throughout the country.”

The dispute that a clearly reluctant Senate will address revolves around Packwood’s refusal to turn over sections of the personal diaries that he has kept for 20 years. For the last 11 months, the Ethics Committee has been investigating allegations that the senator made improper sexual advances toward more than two dozen women and then sought to intimidate some of them into remaining silent.

In refusing to comply with the subpoena, Packwood and his lawyers have argued that the demand for diary entries not directly related to the specific allegations against him amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

Although he has strongly denied that he is trying to “blackmail” other senators into supporting him, Packwood also alarmed and angered some colleagues this week by disclosing that the diaries included entries on the sex lives of other lawmakers and congressional staff members, including a “prominent member of the House Democratic leadership” and a former senator. These, he suggested, were examples of the kind of information the committee is seeking but should not be authorized to obtain.

In response, an angry Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), chairman of the Ethics Committee, issued a sharply worded statement saying that the only reason the committee is seeking entries unrelated to the misconduct charges is that it has come across information suggesting that Packwood also may have violated “one or more laws, including criminal laws” through other activities mentioned in the diaries.

Bryan did not elaborate, but an Oct. 20 letter to the committee from Packwood’s attorneys acknowledged the existence of the new allegations and provided one possible clue by arguing that entries relating to “political, campaign, staff or similar activities” be withheld because they bore no relation to the charges under investigation.

Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) accused Bryan of “unprecedented, thoughtless and suspiciously partisan behavior” in issuing the statement and said Bryan should either report any evidence of criminal violations to federal authorities or retract his statement.

Wallop, who served as chairman or vice chairman of the committee from 1979 to 1983, said it was unprecedented for any member of the committee, let alone the chairman, to make such statements while an investigation is under way. He said Bryan’s statement was a violation of committee rules stating that no member of the panel may release information without authorization of the committee.

Bryan was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment.

With both sides refusing to back down, the Senate must now rule on an ethics case unlike any other it has ever handled. The debate is expected to be both messy and emotional.

“No one really knows what’s going to happen,” said an aide to one of the Ethics Committee’s members. “My only guidance for Monday is to strap in--strap in and wear a helmet.”

While the Senate on occasion has had to censure the conduct of some members, it has never before been called on to go to court to compel the cooperation of a senator in an ethics investigation.

The choice the senators face will be difficult, agreed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). On the one hand, members are concerned about the “dangerous precedent” they could set by forcing a lawmaker into surrendering his private, personal writings.

On the other hand, a vote to keep the Ethics Committee from going to court to enforce the subpoena--or even a move to amend the subpoena by narrowing its scope--could be perceived by voters as a cover-up.

“Whichever side you take,” McCain said, “this is going to be a no-win vote.”