Resolutions

Whereas, the House of Delegates directed at its November 2018 meeting that the Board of Governors review and consider issues of equity in the existing fee structure; and

Whereas, the Board presented the results of its deliberation to the House of Delegates at the 2019 meeting; and

Whereas, the House of Delegates approved at the 2019 meeting the Board taking steps necessary to move from a system of discounts on fees based on years of membership in the bar to a system of discounts based on income and ability to pay, and bring to the House for its final approval at the 2020 HOD meeting any increase in fees based on such a structure pursuant to ORS 9.191; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the 2021 Oregon State Bar member fees for Active Members Under Two Years and for Active 50-Year Members be the same fee as that for other Active Members; the member fees for Inactive, Retired, and Pro Bono 50-Year Members be the same fee as that for other Inactive, Retired, and Pro Bono Members; and a reduced fee equivalent to eighty (80) percent of the regular Active Member fees will be established for Active Members With Income Under $40,000.

Financial Impact

None stated.
 

Presenter:
David Wade, BOG, Region 2

Whereas, the OSB Board of Governors is charged by ORS 9.080(1) with the executive functions of the Oregon State Bar, which includes assuring there are adequate resources for bar operations; and

Whereas, the annual membership fee is established by the Board of Governors and any increase over the amount established for the prior year must be approved by a majority of delegates voting thereon at the annual meeting of the House of Delegates, pursuant to ORS 9.191(1); and

Whereas, the annual membership fee has not been increased since 2016; and

Whereas, the Board of Governors has determined that an increase is required to maintain the current level of programs and services; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the 2021 Oregon State Bar membership be for active, inactive, pro bono and retired members be increased to the following:

Financial Impact

None stated.
 

Presenter:
John Grant, BOG, Region 5

Whereas, the OSB Sustainability Section favors Conservation of Resources;

Whereas, the OSB Mission 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;

Whereas, the 2020 Orders issued by the Chief Justice encouraged movement into a “remote environment” as an appropriate remedial measure necessary to address the COVID-19 pandemic;

Whereas, advances in audio and video technology have facilitated real-time remote communication;

Whereas, persons cited to personally appear in Oregon Courts are currently required to appear in person, even if ill with communicable diseases;

Whereas, required in-person Court Appearances do not allow optimal “Social Distancing” in the Courthouse elevators, Courthouse corridors, and Courtrooms;

Whereas, there is a need to minimize health risks to our communities, that include Judges, Staff, Litigants, Case Participants, Interpreters, and Members of the Public who come into our Courthouses;

Whereas, remote appearances promote sustainable environmental benefits from reduced consumption of fossil fuels through the avoidance of unnecessary travel via motor vehicles;

Whereas, unnecessary travel to make in-person Court appearance also involves interference with employment obligations of both Civil and Criminal Case participants;

Whereas, the Oregon Judicial Branch realizes cost benefits by the implementation of the most efficient methods of conducting Court appearances by reducing avoidable congestion in Court Parking Facilities, Courthouse Facilities, and Security Checkpoints; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the House of Delegates encourages the use of technology to effectuate remote Court appearances, via video and tele conferencing, as the normal protocol for Routine Court appearances; with in-person appearances being the protocol when matters to be considered require in-person Court appearances.

Financial Impact

None stated.

Presenter:
Danny Lang, HOD, Region 3

Whereas, a Degree in Paralegal Studies or other equivalent Training is available to provide Standards of Competency;

Whereas, modern Lawyers increase efficiency by reliance upon Paralegal Staff for utilization of Trial Binders, presentation of Trial Exhibits, and coordination of Witnesses for Courtroom appearances;

Whereas, during Courtroom Trials, Motions, and Hearings, the assistance by a supervised Paralegal improves the effectiveness of the Lawyer;

Whereas, supervised delegation to Paralegals of the foregoing Courtroom functions also provides for greater efficiency, lowers the cost of litigation, and results in greater Access to Justice;

Whereas, during Courtroom proceedings Lawyers will benefit from support personally provided by supervised Paralegals; now,

Therefore, be it resolved that the House of Delegates recommends reforms to allow OSB Member Lawyers to be personally assisted in Oregon Courtrooms by Lawyer supervised Paralegals seated adjacent to the Counsel Table.

Financial Impact

None stated.

Presenter:
Danny Lang, HOD, Region 3

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 is 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 program do not have sufficient resources to meet the civil legal needs of Oregon’s poor;

Whereas, Oregon currently has 2 legal aid lawyers for every 14,000 low-income Oregonians, but the national standards for a minimally adequately funded legal aid program is 2 legal aid lawyers for every 10,000 low-income Oregonians;

Whereas, the health and financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are disparately impacting people from Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) communities, and low-income communities;

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; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar;

Financial Impact

None stated.

Presenters:
Vanessa Nordyke, HOD, Region 6, OSB Past President 2018
Ed Harnden, HOD, Region 5, OSB Past President 2001
Ross Williamson, HOD, Region 2

Whereas, “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.” Oregon State Bar Bylaw 1.2 – Article 1, Purpose of Bar and Definitions; Section 1.2 Purposes;

Whereas, Chief Justice Martha L. Walters, in her Address to the 2018 House of Delegates, recognized the importance of Public Trust in Oregon Courts;

Whereas, Administrative Agency Proceedings in contested cases often implicate Orders that rely upon determinations by Agency Staff, Officials, and Members of Boards, who are often not Members of the Oregon State Bar, and do not always have equivalent Legal Education, Training, and Experience;

Whereas, Civil Procedure Discovery methods are often not readily available during Administrative Agency Proceedings;

Whereas, Administrative Agency Managers and Appointees are not subject to Public Trust scrutiny that is implicated by Judicial Elections;

Whereas, Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Proceedings implicate significant Appellate Legal Fees and Costs that financially restrict Access to Justice for 80% of Oregonians in Civil

Cases; and have an even greater adverse disproportionate impact upon Racial, Ethnic, and Other Minorities;

Whereas, deference to Administrative Agency Determinations, that involve a Rule, Policy, or a Decision, often adversely impact Fundamental Due Process Rights, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution;

Whereas, the lack of transparency in Appellate Judgments of “affirmance without opinion” [“AWOP”] adversely affects Public Trust in Oregon Courts and the Rule of Law;

Whereas, improved Access to Justice and Public Trust in Oregon Courts will benefit by issuance of an Appellate Court Opinion [instead of affirmance without Opinion] of an Order in a contested case involving Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Proceedings;

Whereas, an Appellate Court issuance of an Opinion [instead of affirmance without opinion] is needed to satisfy the Remedy Clause of the Oregon Constitution [Article 1, Bill of Rights – Section 10]; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the House of Delegates recommends to the Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure Committee to look at an amendment to their procedure for issuance of an Appellate Court Opinion in a contested case involving Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Proceedings directs the Administrative Law Section to organize a work group of practitioners, administrative law judges, court staff and others as appropriate to review and consider issues involving judicial review of final orders in contested case proceedings with the intent of making recommendations to the House of Delegates at its next meeting in 2021.

Financial Impact

None stated.

Presenter:
Daniel Robert Lang, HOD, Region 3

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 indigent 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, 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, court-appointed appellate counsel and appellate counsel representing the State are both employees of the State yet a significant salary disparity exists between those attorneys;

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 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.

Financial Impact

None stated.

Presenters:

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 2019 House of Delegates Meeting.

Presenters:
Liani Reeves, BOG, Region 5
David Wade, BOG, Region 2
Colin Andries, BOG, Region 5

Whereas, military service is vital to the perpetuation of freedom and the rule of law; and

Whereas, thousands of Oregonians have served in the military, and many have given their lives; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar hereby extends its gratitude to all those who have served and are serving in the military, and further offers the most sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who have died serving their country.

Presenter:
Adrian Brown, BOG, Region 5