Justice Dept. Drops Probe of Packwood Lobbyist Ties : Ethics: Decision doesn’t end the senator’s legal problems. But experts say the action may have a favorable impact on the sexual misconduct case.

Just as it seemed that his political career was on the verge of imploding, Sen. Bob Packwood received a major reprieve Wednesday when the Justice Department announced that it had dropped its investigation of charges that the Oregon Republican had abused his office by soliciting lobbyists for job offers for his ex-wife.

The announcement, which legal experts said could have a significant impact on the case against the senator, came as the Senate Ethics Committee questioned the Finance Committee chairman for the second day about allegations of both sexual and official misconduct.

Committee members refused to comment on the closed-door session other than to say that Packwood had been summoned to appear before the panel again today. “There is an awful lot of material to cover,” Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, one of three Democrats on the six-member panel, said in explaining why the proceedings were taking so long.

Packwood stands accused of having abused his office through a “pattern of sexual misconduct” toward women over the years, of altering evidence subpoenaed by the Ethics Committee and of soliciting favors from lobbyists with interest in legislation before Congress.

The latter charge, which carries criminal penalties, had also been the subject of an 18-month Justice Department investigation. But a department spokesman confirmed Wednesday that the probe was being dropped and was “now closed as far as we are concerned.”

Although Packwood avoided reporters Wednesday, his Senate office welcomed the news, which had been communicated earlier in the day to the senator’s lawyers by Lee J. Radek, head of the Justice Department’s public integrity section.

Although the Justice Department’s decision to drop its probe related only to what had generally been regarded as the weakest of the three sets of allegations against Packwood, observers said it could have a significant effect on the Ethics Committee’s handling of the other two.

“This is a very favorable development for Sen. Packwood, not only substantively but also for the psychological impact it could have on the committee,” said Robert S. Bennett, a Washington attorney who has served as outside counsel for the committee in other cases.

“It doesn’t end his problems . . . but it serves his purpose quite nicely,” said William Canfield, a former committee staff counsel. “It makes his defense a little bit stronger today than it was yesterday.”

The decision, however, by no means put an end to the 62-year-old senator’s legal problems, which began nearly three years ago after a number of women came forward to accuse him of sexually harassing them over the years.

It was in the course of investigating those allegations that the Ethics Committee came across entries in Packwood’s private diaries that indicated he may have illegally sought job offers from lobbyists for his former wife, Georgie.

Those portions of the diaries were later given to the Justice Department, but the committee kept other evidence indicating that Packwood may have sought to alter his diaries as they were about to be subpoenaed.

In what amounted to a formal indictment last month, the committee said it had found “substantial credible evidence” to indicate that Packwood may have “intentionally” altered the diaries. It also described, in unusually vivid detail, 18 separate instances of alleged sexual misconduct in which the senator was accused of having forced himself on women, grabbing or restraining them while he kissed and fondled them.

While those allegations are pending, the Justice Department decision could have an indirect impact on them if Packwood is found guilty. Under Senate rules, punishment for such conduct could range from a relatively mild reprimand to expulsion from the Senate.

“There may be some senators who would like to let Packwood off with a reprimand but who would fear the embarrassment of doing that” if a Justice Department indictment were imminent, said a source familiar with the way the committee works.