HOD4_Results

Whereas, the Constitutions of both Oregon and the United States require that all people facing a possible deprivation of their physical liberty in court proceedings, such as those accused of criminal offenses, juveniles accused of conduct that would constitute crimes if committed by an adult, and those who are subjects of civil commitment proceedings, have the right to assistance by ethical and competent legal counsel;

Whereas, Oregon statutes guarantee a right to counsel for parents defending against a petition to terminate their parental rights, for parents in juvenile dependency proceedings in which parents may lose custody of their children whenever the nature of the proceedings and due process so require, and for children in juvenile dependency proceedings when requested;

Whereas, those same constitutions and statutes require that the counsel provided the person be paid for by the government, if the person is indigent and cannot afford their own legal counsel;

Whereas, the Sixth Amendment Center published in January 2019 a comprehensive study of Oregon’s public defense system and determined that Oregon’s fixed-fee contract system pits appointed counsels’ financial self-interest against the due process rights of their clients and is prohibited by national public defense standards;

Whereas, the American Bar Association published in January 2022 its report on its calculations of the amount of time public defense providers should spend on average on the various types of public defense cases and concluded that Oregon had one-third the number of public defense attorneys needed to ensure that indigent clients receive constitutionally competent representation;

Whereas, there is a salary and resource disparity between trial level legal counsel for the person and legal counsel for the State;

Whereas, trial level legal counsel for the person are government contractors and legal counsel for the State are government employees funded through direct appropriations;

Whereas, legal counsel for the person has an ethical and professional obligation pursuant to the state and federal constitutions, as well as Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (“A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client”), 1.3 (“A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer”) and 1.7 (“A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a current conflict of interest”) to provide adequate and conflict-free representation;

Whereas, the American Bar Association has acknowledged for over a decade that resource parity, salary parity, and caseload standards are essential to its “Ten Principles of Public Defense”;

Whereas, the House of Delegates has long supported a strong public defense system and increased financial resources for public defense providers; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar, through its Board of Governors and staff, continue to participate actively with courts, prosecutors, the Oregon Department of Justice, the Legislative Assembly, the Public Defense Services Commission, the Office of Public Defense Services, the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and other public safety and child welfare stakeholders, to obtain equal resources and commensurate compensation for public defense providers, and work toward developing caseload standards that ensure those public defense providers can meet their constitutional and ethical obligations.
 
 

Presenters:
Keiler Beers, OSB# 203444, HOD, Region 5
Janae Bly, OSB# 142820, HOD, Region 3
Kristen Farnworth, OSB# 003441, HOD, Region 6
Shannon Flowers, OSB# 073898, HOD, Region 6
Joshua Gums, OSB# 173623, HOD, Region 1
Jennifer Kinzey, OSB# 171324, HOD, Region 4
Adam LeBrun, OSB# 170712, HOD, Region 4