House of Delegates 2025 Resolutions
Agenda
Reports
- Call to Order
Myah Kehoe, OSB President
- Adoption of Final Meeting Agenda
Myah Kehoe, OSB President
- Report of the President
Myah Kehoe, OSB President
- Notice of Actions on Past HOD Resolutions
Myah Kehoe, OSB President
- Report from the Court
Chief Justice Meagan Flynn, Oregon Supreme Court
- Report of the Board of Governors Budget & Finance Committee and Notice of 2026 License Fees
Megan Houlihan, Chair, BOG Budget & Finance Committee
- Overview of Parliamentary Procedure
Lori Brocker, Parliamentarian
Resolutions
- (BOG Resolution No. 1) Amend HOD Rules of Procedure
Ankur Doshi, OSB General Counsel
- (BOG Resolution No. 2) Amend Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 and 1.15-1
Ankur Doshi, OSB General Counsel
- (BOG Resolution No. 3) Amend RPCs for Licensed Paralegals
Ankur Doshi, OSB General Counsel
- (Delegate Resolution No. 1) Evaluate Amending RPC 1.8 (e)(3)
Danny Lang, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
- (Delegate Resolution No. 2) Leadership Institute Engagement with HOD Members
Danny Lang, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
- (Delegate Resolution No. 3) Allocation of Adequate Funding for the HOD
Danny Lang, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
- (Delegate Resolution No. 4) Licensure of Law Practitioners
Danny Lang, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
- (Delegate Resolution No. 5) Support for Adequate Funding for Legal Services to Low-Income Oregonians
Peter Werner, HOD Region 1
Kristie Gibson, HOD Region 2
Victory Walker, HOD Region 3
Maureen McGee, HOD Region 5
Vanessa Nordyke, HOD Region 6
Heather Decker, HOD Region 7
- (Delegate Resolution No. 6) Support Adequate Funding for the Oregon Judicial Branch
Vanessa Nordyke, HOD Region 6
- (BOG Resolution No. 4) In Memoriam
Simonne Weyand, BOG Member – Region 4
Kyle Sciuchetti, BOG Member – Region 8
Eddie Passadore, BOG Member – Public Member
Board of Governors Resolution 1
Amend HOD Rules of Procedure
Whereas, the Board of Governors has proposed the following amendment to the Oregon State Bar House of Delegates pursuant to ORS 9.142;
Whereas, the House of Delegates must adopt any changes in the House of Delegates Rules of Procedure pursuant to ORS 9.142; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the following amendments to the House of Delegates Rules of Procedure as set forth below are approved and shall go into effect on January 1, 2026:
4.2 As soon as practicable after each meeting of the House of Delegates, the Chief Executive Officer shall prepare and publish to the Oregon State Bar membership licensees of the Oregon State Bar a summary of the actions of the House.
5.1 Licensees Members of the Oregon State Bar, delegates of the House of Delegates, and the Board of Governors may submit questions or measures for placement on the agenda of House meetings as set forth in Rules 5.2 through 5.4.
5.3 Any active licensee member of the Oregon State Bar, by petition signed by at least two percent (2%) of all active licensees members of the Oregon State Bar, may submit a question or measure for the agenda of any House of Delegates meeting as provided in the Bar Act. See ORS 9.148(3). The petition must be filed with the Chief Executive Officer at least forty-five (45) days before the meeting at which it is to be presented.
5.5 In advance of any meeting of the House of Delegates, the Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar shall review proposed agenda items for conformity with applicable law and bar policy and propose a preliminary agenda for the meeting. The preliminary agenda, along with notice of the questions or measures the Board determined should not be placed on the agenda, shall be published, with notice thereof, to the licensees membership of the Oregon State Bar at least twenty (20) days prior to the meeting.
7.1 Active members licensees of the bar may participate in the discussion of matters before the House. See ORS 9.148(1). Only delegates may invoke the House rules and parliamentary procedure during meetings of the House.
7.8 If there are no speakers members in queue to debate on a matter, the presiding officer may direct the House to vote on the matter.
9.1 If a delegate seeks to amend a matter on the floor, the delegate must submit an amendment in writing prior to moving to amend a matter on the floor. Members Delegates appearing electronically will be provided an email address to submit amendments.
10.1 Meetings of the House of Delegates are open to all members licensees of the Oregon State Bar, the media and the public, except as provided otherwise by the Public Meetings Law (ORS 192.610 et seq.)
The legislature passed SB 166 earlier this year, officially changing the terminology within the Bar Act, ORS Chapter 9, from “member” to “licensee” on January 1, 2026. These amendments to the HOD Rules of Procedure reflect those changes to bring the rules in line with this statutory change. HOD Rules of Procedure must be adopted by the HOD to be effective under HOD Rule 11.1
Financial Impact
None.
Presenter:
Ankur Doshi, OSB General Counsel
Board of Governors Resolution 2
Amend Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 and 1.15-1
Whereas, the Legal Ethics Committee and the Board of Governors formulated the following amendments to the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) and 1.15-1(c);
Whereas, the House of Delegates must approve any changes in the Rules of Professional Conduct before they are presented to the Oregon Supreme Court for adoption pursuant to ORS 9.490(1); now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the amendments of Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 and 1.15-1 as set forth below are approved and shall be submitted to the Oregon Supreme Court for adoption:
RULE 1.5 FEES.
* * *
(c) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge or collect:
* * *
(3) a fee denominated as “earned on receipt,” “nonrefundable,” or in similar terms; unless it is pursuant to a written agreement signed by the client which explains that:(i) the funds will not be deposited into the lawyer trust account, and (ii) the client may discharge the lawyer at any time and in that event may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee if the services for which the fee was paid are not completed.
(4) a fee described as a “prepaid fee” or similar terms, unless it is pursuant to a written agreement signed by the client that explains
(i) the nature of the fee arrangement and the scope of the services to be provided;
(ii) the total amount of the fee and the terms of payment;
(iii) that the fee will not be deposited into a lawyer trust account;
(iv) that the client may terminate the services of the attorney at any time for any reason or no reason; and
(v) that the client may be entitled to a refund of all or part of a fee if the services for which the fee was paid are not completed and how any such refund would be calculated.
RULE 1.15-1 SAFEKEEPING PROPERTY.
* * *
(c) A lawyer shall deposit into a lawyer trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred, unless the fee is denominated as “earned on receipt,” “nonrefundable” or similar terms and complies with Rule 1.5(c)(4)(3).
Currently, Oregon Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) uses the language “earned on receipt” or “nonrefundable” for fixed fees. Fixed fees provide legal services at a set cost to the client. Such fees are not kept in a lawyer’s trust account, but placed into a lawyer’s operating account. Paradoxically, fixed fees, even though denoted as “nonrefundable” under Oregon RPC 1.5 1, are still refundable under RPC 1.5.1 Oregon RPC 1.5(c)(3) even requires notice that a “nonrefundable fee” is refundable. The language in the current rule confuses clients and the public. The ABA Model Rules and ABA Formal Ethics Op 505 (2023) strongly disfavor the language “earned on receipt” and “nonrefundable,” noting that it simply sidesteps an attorney’s ethical obligations.2
In June of 2022, the Client Security Fund (CSF) Committee requested that the Legal Ethics Committee (LEC) review the current rules regarding fees denoted as “nonrefundable” or “earned on receipt.” The CSF Committee noted that approximately 25 percent of all claims paid by the CSF arose from the failure to refund unearned fixed fees. The CSF Committee relayed that the legal fiction of “nonrefundable” and “earned on receipt” required by RPC 1.5(c)(3) discouraged many clients from seeking a refund from the attorney.
The LEC developed proposed amendments to address the CSF Committee concerns. It shared its proposal with a number of legal practitioners, including a former member of the CSF Committee and immigration attorney, a practitioner that used prepaid fees in their prior criminal practice, a professional responsibility attorney, and a practitioner who utilized prepaid fees in their transactional practice. These practitioners expressed concerns that the proposed amendments would be an undue burden and therefore have an adverse impact on their ability to charge fixed fees at all. They suggested revisions to the LEC proposal to address their concerns. The LEC agreed with the revisions and presented the revised proposal to the Board of Governors in April 2025. The Board of Governors approved submitting the amendments to the House of Delegates.
The proposed amendments simplify the language used by practitioners in fixed-fee arrangements, and avoid confusion by the public about the fixed-fee arrangement. The use of terms such as “earned on receipt” or “nonrefundable” would be prohibited, and the amendment would require the use of “prepaid fee,” or similar terms to refer to fixed fees. The new rules integrate additional consumer protection in the form of disclosures to the client. The amendment is not intended to be restrictive to legal practitioners, however. The broad language assists legal practitioners in crafting a fee agreement that clients can easily understand and will not be an undue burden to comply with.
Subsection (i) requires that the fee agreement clearly contains the scope of the representation. Subsection (ii) requires the fee agreement to state the total amount of the fee charged to the client along with the terms of payment. The combination of these two provisions provides clients with a clear understanding of the scope of the representation, including the services included in the prepaid fee.
Subsection (iii) informs the client that the prepaid fee will not be held in a lawyer’s trust account. The LEC debated whether to provide clients with the option to hold the prepaid fee in a lawyer trust account. The concern raised by practitioners was that a single client’s request to hold funds in trust may force a practitioner to incur the burden and cost of opening a trust account for a single client. The LEC opted instead to allow the client to have notice that fixed fees are not held in a trust account.
Subsections (iv) and (v) notify the client that the client may terminate the representation at any time. They also provide the client with notice that a refund may be available. This provision, along with the removal of “nonrefundable” or “earned on receipt,” informs the client that they can terminate their attorney’s services and seek a partial refund if services are not completed or satisfactory.
Under the revised rules, the fee agreement clearly defines the scope, amount, and refund process. If a representation ends prematurely, the attorney has a clear, ethical path to resolve the issue promptly and amicably, preserving both professional integrity and client satisfaction.
1 See OSB Formal Ethics Op 2005-151 (rev 2011) (citing In re Thomas, 294 Or 505, 526, 659 P2d 960 (1983) (“It would appear that any fee that is collected for services that is not earned is clearly excessive regardless of the amount.”)).
2 Quoting In re Long, 368 Or 452, 455-56, 474–75, 491 P3d 783 (2021), ABA Formal Ethics Op 505 notes that this language creates unnecessary risks for the client (ABA Formal Ethics Op 505 at 7 n 24). ABA Formal Ethics Op 505 perceives this type of language as simply “sidestepping” an attorney’s ethical obligation to safeguard client funds (ABA Formal Ethics Op 505 at 5).
Financial Impact
None stated.
Presenter:
Ankur Doshi, OSB General Counsel
Board of Governors Resolution 3
Amend RPCs for Licensed Paralegals
Whereas, the Legal Ethics Committee and the Board of Governors formulated the following amendments to the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct;
Whereas, the House of Delegates must approve any changes in the Rules of Professional Conduct before they are presented to the Oregon Supreme Court for adoption pursuant to ORS 9.490(1); now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the amendments of Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth below in Exhibit 1 are approved and shall be submitted to the Oregon Supreme Court for adoption.
In 2024, the bar admitted its first licensed paralegals (LPs). LPs are licensed to provide limited-scope legal services in family law and landlord-tenant law. LPs are regulated by the bar and must follow professional conduct rules like the lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), known as the Rules of Professional Conduct for Licensed Paralegals (RPC-LPs). Violations of the RPC-LPs subject an LP to discipline by the bar. Currently, there are approximately 24 LPs licensed within Oregon.
However, the RPCs, when adopted, never envisioned a new type of limited licensed practitioner. Currently, the RPCs utilize the term “lawyer” with the connotation that lawyers are the only persons licensed to practice law in Oregon. This limitation has raised ethical questions about the relationship between attorneys and LPs. For example, one open question is whether a lawyer can talk to an opposing party represented by an LP, or is the lawyer limited to talking to an opposing party’s LP under the no-contact rule in RPC 4.2.
Recognizing these challenges, the LEC undertook a detailed review process, meeting with stakeholders, including practicing LPs, to carefully evaluate necessary changes to harmonize the current RPCs with the introduction of LPs. After a review, the LEC recommended multiple amendments to the current RPCs to consider LPs in relation to lawyers within the RPCs.
These amendments are throughout the RPCs and noted in Exhibit 1. A summary of the changes is listed in the in the chart below. Most of these amendments are perfunctory and simply add LP in addition to lawyer.
| Rule | Change |
|---|---|
| 1.0 (d) | Added LPs to definition of Firm. |
| 1.0 (r),(s),(t) | New LP-specific definitions. |
| 1.5 (b) (7) | Added LPs to consideration of experience in determining fees. |
| 1.5 (d) | Added section allowing for the division of fees between LPs and lawyers of different firms if fees are divided proportionally to the services performed. |
| 1.5(e) | Added LPs to non-prohibition of payments for sale of law practice. |
| 1.6 | Added LPs to confidentiality provision. |
| 1.7 (a)(3) | Added LPs to closely related conflicts under this provision. |
| 1.10 (a),(c) | Added LPs to imputation rules; LP conflicts impute the same way lawyer conflicts would under the RPCs or the equivalent LP Rules. |
| 1.11 (b) | Added LPs to imputation rules; LP conflicts impute the same way lawyer conflicts would under the RPCs or the equivalent LP Rules. |
| 1.12(b) | Added that a lawyer acting as a judge or third-party neutral may not negotiate for employment with a lawyer or LP who represents a party in the proceeding. |
| 1.12(c) | Added that if LP is disqualified under 1.12(a), the disqualification imputes the firm absent screening. |
| 1.17 | Added that an LP may sell a practice to the lawyer in accordance with this rule. |
| 3.3(a)(2) | Opposing LP added to duty of candor. |
| 3.6(d) | LP added to firm prohibition on statements. |
| 4.2 (a),(c) | Party represented by LP added to no-contact rule. |
| 4.3 | Party represented by LP added to unrepresented client rule. |
| 5.1 | LP added to lawyer’s responsibility for violations of the RPCs, or the equivalent RPC-LP rule. |
| 5.6 | Added LP to prohibition on restriction of right to practice. |
| 5.8 | New Rule. Establishes structure for LP and lawyer ownership of firms. |
| 6.5 | Adds LPs to 1.7 potential conflict issues when lawyers are helping with a nonprofit legal services program. |
| 8.3 | Adds LP to lawyers’ mandatory reporting requirements. |
The LEC had several discussions where adding LPs to certain provisions of the RPCs raised concerns with practitioners. Lawyers and LPs highlighted specific concerns.
One concern raised was about referral fees between lawyers and LPs in different firms. LPs noted that fee-splitting arrangements may be necessary in situations where client issues exceeded an LP’s scope of practice. For instance, LPs dealing with family law matters occasionally encounter complex issues that exceed the scope of their limited practice, such as qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) and retirement asset divisions. LP must refer these matters to a lawyer under their scope-of-practice rules.1
Lawyers raised concern about LPs obtaining clients clearly outside of an LP’s practice area (such as personal injury) and requesting a referral fee to refer the clients to a lawyer. After substantial debate, the LEC resolved this concern by implementing proportionality language. This language requires any fee splitting between LPs and attorneys in different firms be proportionate to the services each lawyer and LP provides. This amendment would address concerns about referral fees outside of an LP’s scope of practice while ensuring LPs receive fair compensation for their contributions. The amendment does not change the current rule for fee splitting between lawyers.
Firm partnership between LPs and attorneys was another significant issue discussed by the LEC. Multiple models of firm ownership were considered. The LEC agreed that LPs should have some capability to have ownership in firms. However, the LEC also noted that a wholly owned LP firm with lawyer employees created substantial supervision and professional independence concerns under RPCs 5.2 and 5.4.
The LEC also heard concerns about allowing LPs within a firm to partake in fees that were outside their scope of practice. After discussion, the LEC determined fee divisions within a firm were business decisions best left to the firm and market forces to resolve. As LPs are regulated in the same manner as lawyers, several concerns that led to the prohibition surrounding fee splitting with nonlawyers did not exist. Allowing firms to have the freedom to select LPs as potential partners provides firms freedom to experiment with LPs to serve clients only needing limited scope services. However, supervision of a lawyer by an LP continued to raise concerns about professional independence.
To resolve this issue, the LEC recommended adopting a new rule based on the rule utilized by the Washington State Bar in its integration of limited license legal technicians (LLLTs) in 2012. The new rule, proposed Oregon RPC 5.8, allows LPs to hold an ownership or partnership stake in law firms under specific conditions designed to preserve professional independence and supervision. LPs cannot hold majority ownership, cannot exert supervisory authority over attorneys, and cannot influence attorneys’ professional judgment. Attorneys within the firm retain majority control and managerial responsibility, ensuring professional integrity and proper supervision.
The Board of Governors evaluated the amendments and noted that these changes are critical for the success of LPs within Oregon. They recommend that the House of Delegates approve these amendments accordingly.
1 See Rules for Licensening Paralegals. Section 11 Scope of Practice Rules for Licensed Paralegals in Oregon.
Financial Impact
None.
Presenter:
Ankur Doshi, OSB General Counsel
Delegate Resolution 1
Evaluate Amending RPC 1.8(e)(3)
Whereas, Members of the Oregon State Bar are encouraged to perform Pro Bono Legal Services and to promote Access to Justice;
Whereas, Members of the Oregon State Bar have been informed that 80% of the Civil Litigation needs of Members of the Public remain unserved;
Whereas, a favorable public opinion of Lawyers is an important quality of the general reputation of Members of the Oregon State Bar;
Whereas, Members of the Oregon State Bar may encounter potential Clients and actual Clients that are worthy and deserving of Lawyer benevolence by reason of their economic hardship, such as low-income or poverty status physical disabilities, mental health challenges, family obligations, unemployment factors, and any other rational justifications;
Whereas, random acts of kindness and benevolence are presently prohibited by ethical restrictions in the Rules of Professional Conduct; and,
Therefore, the HOD Delegates recommends that the Board of Governors evaluate amending RPC 1.8(e)(3)(i)(ii)(iii), and related prohibitions, so as to improve the Public image of Lawyers by permitting or encouraging Lawyer economic assistance for the relief of genuine economic hardships, in the same spirit of Pro Bono Professional kindness.
Submitted by:
Danny Lang, Region 3, Ex-Officio HOD Delegate
Delegate Resolution 2
Leadership Institute Engagement with HOD Members
Whereas, the Oregon State Bar has an ongoing interest in the development in future Bar Leaders;
Whereas, the development of future Bar Leaders includes sponsorship of a an OSB Leadership Institute engaged in various activities to promote Leadership;
Whereas, in 2023, Members of the HOD approved a Resolution by a Vote of 126 to 12, to Appoint a HOD Engagement Committee; specifically, “be it resolved that the BOG appoint a Volunteer Committee to study and made recommendations for how to improve HOD engagement as well as communication and coordination between BOG and HOD.”;
Whereas, the HOD Engagement Committee Report has been accepted by the Board of Governors;
Whereas, the functioning of the HOD has been primarily at the Annual Meeting, at which HOD Members may present proposed Resolutions for the advancement of the science of Juris Prudence pursuant to the Mission of the Oregon State Bar;
Whereas, enhanced engagement of the HOD is possible by combining various periodic joint sessions attended by volunteer HOD Members and Leadership Institute participants;
Whereas, participation by Leadership Institute participants and Volunteer Members of the HOD would provide opportunities for the beneficial exchange of ideas, that include addressing the historical problem facing the 80% of Oregonians deprived of Access to Justice, and other improvements in the Legal Profession; now
Therefore, be it resolved, that the HOD recommends that the Board of Governors consider how to promote enhance engagement by combining periodic joint sessions of the Leadership Institute with volunteer Members of the HOD including, but not limited to, adequate funding for the Judicial Branch, evolving Legal Education, Public Defenders, Homelessness Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Local Bar Associations, Civility, and the ongoing problem of how to serve the 80% of Oregonians without Access to Justice.
Presenter:
Danny Lang, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
Delegate Resolution 3
Allocation of Adequate Funding for the HOD
Whereas, all Lawyer Members & Licensed Paralegal Members of the Oregon State Bar are required to pay substantial Annual Bar Dues;
Whereas, the present OSB Annual Dues are reportedly the costliest Annual Dues in all jurisdictions in the United States;
Whereas, all Lawyer Members & Licensed Paralegal Members have an interest as stakeholders in the allocation of OSB Revenues;
Whereas, better informed Members will be better able assist in determining prioritization of the Proposed Allotments among the Programs, Sections, CLE Programs, and the functioning of both the BOG and the HOD in fulfilling the Mission of the OSB, including realization of greater Access to Justice;
Whereas, the HOD serves as a Representative Body of the Membership to assist and advise the HOD in fulfilling and adequately funding implementation of HOD Resolutions;
Whereas, Presenters of recent Proposed HOD Resolutions have faced challenges to adoption of meritorious Resolutions by the negative implications cast by potential undetermined fiscal impacts;
Whereas, all functioning OSB obligations should be considered and addressed prior to the Annual Meeting of the HOD so as to avoid the appearance that passage of a HOD Resolution will automatically drain the funding of all other BAR activities;
Whereas, in recognition of the benefits provided to all Lawyer Members & Licensed Paralegal Members, and to the Public we all voluntarily serve;
Therefore, be it resolved, that HOD Members recommend that the Board of Governors recognize that the HOD brings forth Reforms and Resolutions for the advancement of Access to Justice by ensuring adequate allocation of Revenues (Dues) to ensure that meritorious Resolutions adopted by the HOD be implemented.
Presenter:
Danny Lang, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
Delegate Resolution 4
Licensure of Law Practitioners
Whereas, Access to Justice for 80% of Oregonians remains unavailable;
Whereas, the number of OSB Lawyers has failed to keep pace with the population growth of Oregon and the ongoing shortage of Oregon Lawyers has become more critical in rural Oregon Counties;
Whereas, the continuing shortage of Public Defenders has also become an acute problem implicating deprivation of Constitutional Rights to Legal Services in Oregon;
Whereas, there is a growing shortage of OSB Lawyer Members available to satisfy the need for Lawyers to represent Persons in Civil and Criminal cases in Rural Areas and in underserved Communities;
Whereas, the limitations upon the scope of licensure of OSB Licensed Paralegals preclude Paralegals from appearing in Court in routine Traffic Court Violation Cases, routine Unemployment Hearings, routine DMV Implied Consent Hearings, routine Appearances in Circuit Courts, Municipal Courts, and in routine Administrative Agency matters;
Whereas, the scope of licensure of OSB Licensed Paralegals generally does not include any Court Appearances to assist OSB Licensed Lawyers, during Hearings, Motions, and Trials;
Whereas, creation of mid-level Licensure of Law Practitioners would provide greater Access to Justice by lowering the cost of Legal Services to the 80% of Oregonians that are unable to afford representation by Licensed Lawyers, especially in the foregoing types of routine matters;
Whereas, the existing the Oregon Law Schools have the resources to adapt Legal Education by providing a one-year curriculum [plus Internships] focused upon the foregoing types of routine matters, now;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Board of Governors consider the feasibility of Licensure of Law Practitioners in order to better reach the unserved 80% of Oregonians in need of an intermedial range of Legal Services.
Presenter:
Danny Lang, OSB #790078, Ex-Officio Delegate, Region 3
Delegate Resolution 5
Support of Adequate Funding for Legal Services to Low-Income Oregonians
Whereas, providing equal access to justice and high-quality legal representation to all Oregonians is central to the mission of the Oregon State Bar;
Whereas, equal access to justice plays an important role in the perception of fairness of the justice system;
Whereas, programs providing civil legal services to low-income Oregonians are a fundamental component of the Bar’s effort to provide such access;
Whereas, since 1998, pursuant to ORS 9.572, the Oregon State Bar has operated the Legal Services Program to manage and provide oversight of funds allocated by the State of Oregon for legal aid. This is done in accordance with the Bar’s Standards and Guidelines, which incorporate national standards for operating a statewide legal aid program;
Whereas, Oregon’s legal aid programs do not have sufficient resources to meet the civil legal needs of Oregon’s poor;
Whereas, assistance from the Oregon State Bar and the legal community is critical to maintaining and developing resources that will provide low-income Oregonians meaningful access to the justice system.
Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar:
(1) Strengthen its commitment and ongoing efforts to improve the availability of a full range of legal services to all citizens of our state, through the development and maintenance of adequate support and funding for Oregon’s legal aid programs and through support for the Campaign for Equal Justice.
(2) Request that Congress and the President of the United States make a genuine commitment to equal justice by adequately funding the Legal Services Corporation, which provides federal support for legal aid.
(3) Work with Oregon’s legal aid programs and the Campaign for Equal Justice to preserve and increase state funding for legal aid and explore other sources of new funding.
(4) Actively participate in the efforts of the Campaign for Equal Justice to increase contributions by the Oregon legal community, by establishing goals of a 100% participation rate by members of the House of Delegates, 75% of Oregon State Bar Sections contributing, and a 50% contribution rate by all lawyers.
(5) Support the Oregon Law Foundation and its efforts to increase resources through the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program, and encourage Oregon lawyers to bank with financial institutions that are OLF Leadership Banks, meaning that they pay the highest IOLTA rates.
(6) Support the Campaign for Equal Justice in efforts to educate lawyers and the community about the legal needs of the poor, legal services delivery and access to justice for low-income and vulnerable Oregonians.
(7) Encourage Oregon lawyers to support civil legal services programs through enhanced pro bono work.
(8) Support continued funding for critical immigration legal services so that these vulnerable Oregonians are provided legal representation.
(9) Support the fundraising efforts of those nonprofit organizations that provide civil legal services to low-income Oregonians that do not receive funding from the Campaign for Equal Justice.
The mission of the Oregon State Bar is to serve justice by promoting respect for the rule of law, by improving the quality of legal services and by increasing access to justice. One of the three main functions of the bar is to advance a fair, inclusive, and accessible justice system.
The Board of Governors and the House of Delegates have adopted a series of resolutions supporting adequate funding for civil legal services in Oregon (Delegate Resolutions in 1996, 1997, 2002, 2005–2024). This resolution is similar to the resolution passed in 2024.
The legal services organizations in Oregon were established by the state and local bar associations to increase access for low-income clients. The majority of the boards of the legal aid programs are appointed by state and local bar associations. The Oregon State Bar operates the Legal Services Program pursuant to ORS 9.572 to distribute the state statutory allocation for civil legal services and provide methods for evaluating the legal services programs. The Campaign for Equal Justice works collaboratively with the Oregon Law Foundation and the Oregon State Bar to support Oregon’s legal aid programs. The Bar and the Oregon Law Foundation each appoint a member to serve on the board of the Campaign for Equal Justice.
Oregon’s legal aid program consists of three separate non-profits that work together as part of an integrated service delivery system designed to provide high-priority, free, civil legal services to low-income Oregonians in all 36 Oregon counties through offices in 18 communities. There are two statewide programs, Legal Aid Services of Oregon (LASO) and the Oregon Law Center (OLC); and one county-wide program, the Center for Non-Profit Legal Services (Jackson County). Because the need is great and resources are limited, legal aid offices address high priority civil legal issues such as safety from domestic violence, housing, consumer law, income maintenance (social security, unemployment insurance, and other self-sufficiency benefits), health, employment and individual rights.
In 2024, about 23% of legal aid’s cases were family law cases, usually helping victims of domestic violence. Another 45% of cases were related to maintaining housing. All of these programs work to stretch limited resources through pro bono programs and self-help materials. Legal aid directly handled 8,370 client cases in 2024, and provided help to more than 52,915 low-income Oregonians through clinics, legal education workshops and programs, through self-help guidance and through agency referrals.
Recently, legal aid and the Oregon State Bar worked together to reformulate and relaunch the website www.oregonlawhelp.org. The rethought and redesigned website provides better resources to Oregonians in need, and provides easier access to legal aid referrals and self-help materials. In 2024, the Oregon Law Help website received over 375,000 unique visitors.
Additionally, Oregonians who were victims of wildfires received vital self-help information and referrals through legal aid’s disaster service website, https://oregondisasterlegalservices.org.
Submitted by:
Peter A. Werner, OSB# 091722, HOD Region 1
Kristie Gibson, OSB #990528, HOD Region 2
Victory Walker, OSB #014483, HOD Region 3
Sonia Montalbano, OSB# 970821, HOD Region 5
Vanessa Nordyke, OSB# 084339, HOD Region 6, OSB Past President 2018
Heather Decker, OSB# 962589, HOD Region 7
Delegate Resolution 6
Support Adequate Funding for the Oregon Judicial Branch
Whereas, the mission of the Oregon State Bar is to serve justice and the public interest by promoting respect for the rule of law, by improving the quality of legal services, and by increasing access to justice; and,
Whereas, the Oregon Judicial Branch has adopted a Justice Campaign for 2024-2027 continuing four commitments to the people of Oregon: (1) to collaborate with community partners to improve services and access for people who are underserved, vulnerable, and marginalized; (2) to improve the court user experience by identifying and eliminating barriers to access to justice and ensuring safe, secure, and accessible court facilities; (3) earn the public’s trust and confidence through communication, transparency, high ethical standards, and promoting the rule of law; and (4) to provide a workplace and courthouse culture that is welcoming, supportive, and diverse, and where all people are treated with respect; and,
Whereas, the Chief Justice has based her budget requests for the Oregon Judicial Department on needs and services identified through a strategic planning process that prioritized the Justice Campaign commitments, and the Oregon Legislative Assembly has based many of its funding decisions on the priorities established in the Chief Justice’s Recommended Budget; and,
Whereas, the Oregon Judicial Department will need adequate resources for courts to respond to court users who have mental and behavioral health challenges, continue collaborative initiatives to better serve self-represented litigants, expand outreach and transparency efforts, continue using data-driven performance measures, continue to assist in finding solutions to the unrepresented persons crisis in Oregon, and ensure that judges and court staff have the training and education needed to address the needs of the people they serve, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that we applaud the Legislative Assembly for its support of the Oregon Judicial Department’s Justice Campaign and strategic priorities; we request that the Assembly continue to improve funding to provide necessary court services, improve compensation to attract and retain highly qualified judges, provide safe and secure court facilities, and otherwise support the goals of the Justice Campaign; and we further encourage all members of the Oregon State Bar to thank legislators for funding the Judicial Branch and continue to urge their support for the Chief Justice’s Recommended Budget for the Oregon Judicial Department.
Submitted by:
Vanessa Nordyke, OSB# 084339, HOD, Region 6, OSB Past President 2018
Delegate Resolution 7
Establish a Committee to Investigate and Propose Solutions for Reducing Oregon State Bar Dues
Whereas, The Oregon State Bar currently has the highest bar dues in the country, which imposes a significant financial burden on its members; and
Whereas, High bar dues disproportionately affect solo practitioners and small law firms, who often have limited financial resources compared to larger firms; and
Whereas, These increased financial pressures can lead to a decrease in the number of solo and small law firms, which in turn can reduce access to legal services in rural and underserved areas; and
Whereas, Solo and small firm practitioners play a critical role in serving diverse and marginalized communities and providing affordable legal representation to individuals and businesses across Oregon; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Oregon State Bar shall establish a committee to investigate why Oregon has the highest bar dues in the country, explore the impacts of high bar dues on solo practitioners and small firms, and propose actionable solutions to reduce the cost of bar dues while maintaining the Bar’s essential functions and services.
Oregon’s high bar dues place an undue financial burden on its members, especially solo practitioners and small law firms, who typically operate on tighter margins than larger firms. These practitioners are essential to ensuring access to justice for individuals and small businesses, particularly in rural, underserved areas and in marginalized communities. High bar dues can exacerbate financial strain on these firms, potentially leading to fewer solo and small firm attorneys, reduced access to legal services, and less affordable legal representation.
This resolution proposes the formation of a committee tasked with investigating the reasons behind Oregon’s elevated bar dues, understanding the specific financial challenges faced by solo practitioners and small firms, and developing concrete recommendations to lower dues without compromising the Bar’s core responsibilities. By addressing this issue, the Oregon State Bar can better support the diversity of its members and promote broader access to legal services.
Financial Impact
This committee should be staffed with volunteers so as to minimize additional costs to the Bar.
Submitted by:
Mario Musil, OSB# 206766, HOD Region 7
Board of Governors Resolution 4
In Memoriam
Resolved, that the OSB House of Delegates and members assembled stand for a moment of silence in honor of the members of the Oregon State Bar who have died since the 2024 House of Delegates Meeting.
Ernest H. Badeau
Peter L. Barnhisel
Katherine L. Beck Fey
R Hunter Bitner II
Bruce A. Bottini
Robert J. Brazeau
Thomas W. Brown
Neva T. Campbell
F J. Capriotti III
Charles W. Carnese
Lawrence A. Castle
David P. Cooper
James R. Cowan
Stuart J. Cutler
E Joseph Dean
Thomas J. Ditton
Kelly Michael Doyle
Martin Drobac
Patrick M. Ebbett
Dirk Edwards
David A. Ernst
Lawrence Evans
Dale F. Evans
Robert N. Funk
Morris J. Galen
Vernon D. Gleaves
John L. Henderson
Albert W. Hoguet
Michael A. Holstun
Douglas G. Houser
Susan Gail Howe
John G. Humphrey
Neil W. Jackson
Louise Jayne
Hon. Robert E. Jones
Masha A. Kazakova
John P. Kneeland
James J. Kolstoe
Patrick Lavis
Stephen R. Ledoux
Thomas J. Lekas
Martin Leuenberger
Robert W. Lockwood
Jan Londahl
Hon. Malcolm F. Marsh
Philip R. McConville
Terence K. McGee
Emil O. Muhs Jr.
Robert K. Naslund
K. William O’Connor
Nathan R. Pliska
Christopher Prescott
Monique Renner
Ronald E. Rhodes
Joe B. Richards
Robert C. Robertson
Michael E. Rose
Douglas A. Schoen
Douglas R. Schultz
Edward E. Sites
Larry N. Sokol
Leslie N. Spitz
Celeste M. Strate
Pamela McCarroll Thies
Hon. Pierre Van Rysselberghe
Dennis R. VavRosky
David T. Viuhkola
Melissa J. Ward
Peter O. Watts
Frank S. Wesson
William G. Wheatley
Kenneth A. Wright
Thomas E. Wurtz
Shane Choi Young
Presenters:
Simonne Weyand, BOG Region 4
Kyle Sciuchetti, BOG Region 8
Eddie Passadore, BOG Public Member