Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

Oregon State Bar (OSB) Bulletin: June 2009: Duty of Confidentiality: Top 10 Myths, by Helen Hierschbiel, will be interesting for lawyer and client alike. It is another reminder to non-attorneys that you can’t learn the law from watching television shows or reading legal fiction, not that they aren’t fun and I highly recommend you keep enjoying both. But don’t confuse what you see portrayed on the big screen, or the Internet or in a novel, with the actual practice and word of law.

Excerpt: “If there is one duty that virtually all lawyers have ingrained in their psyches, it is the duty to protect their clients’ confidential information. Notwithstanding this basic instinct, myths about the duty abound. In a highly unscientific method called “asking around,” the OSB general counsel’s office compiled the following list of top 10 myths about the duty of confidentiality, and the truth behind these myths….
…
Myth #3: You may reveal your client’s confidences after the client has died.
Contrary to popular belief, the lawyer-client privilege survives the death of the client. The U.S. Supreme Court explained the purpose of this rule in Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 407 (1998), saying that posthumous application of the privilege encourages full and frank communication with counsel….” (read full article)

Link to Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility and other sources of information on the regulation of attorneys in Oregon.

Published on:

By

The Oregon cell phone bill that became law: House Bill 2377 (or link to the enrolled bill from here): Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving; amending ORS 811.507

When signed, it will show up at the Governor’s webpage and, when given a Chapter number, as an Oregon Law. It will not appear in the ORS until the Oregon Laws are codified by Legislative Counsel, most likely early in 2010. Then, look for the 2009 ORS, online and in print. Until then, you need to read it in its session law form.

The DMV will likely have more information soon about the cell phone law.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Trial Ad Notes has a post about a blog on Pardon Power.

The practice of “pardon law” is fairly specialized. Take a look at Pardon Power’s sidebar. Bloggers and researchers know how much work it takes to build a website like this!

I have blogged before about getting a pardon in Oregon state court.

Published on:

By

Public law librarians get a lot of questions about traffic tickets, especially photo radar. Here’s a very brief primer on the subject, the gist of which is, Talk to a Lawyer. They are the real experts.

Most of the “speed measuring device” statutes, which include radar, are in Chapter 810 of the ORS , but you’ll also want to look at ORS 811.

To plead your case, you will likely need to dig deeper than the statutes and into the case law and regulations – and talk to a defense attorney. There are many issues that can arise in photo radar challenges that could affect the outcome of your case, e.g. probable cause, equipment calibration and operation, etc. You will find it helpful to consult a defense attorney has experience defending people with speeding tickets.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

If you are a simple soul, and only infrequently need more from your search engine than a blunt keyword search (Oregon legal research, for example), iLibrarian links to this post: 100+ Alternative Search Engines You Should Know.

I especially liked the list of E-Book & PDF Search Engines. These are good complements to a Google’s filetype search. And, sometimes you just need more than one search engine. The Google search is a bit more useful in that the size of the publication can be seen more quickly, and you can choose to view the document in HMTL, as an alternative to the PDF. But these others search engines have their own strengths and you don’t have to be a Super Searcher to make good use of them.

By
Posted in: Other
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

This is a Quick and Easy Guide. More complicated ones exist, but it just doesn’t have to be that hard – and this way you have no excuse for not speaking out:

In a Nutshell (example of a 4-step script follows):

1) Who IS your legislator? One quick way to find out is to use this Find Your Legislator tool. It will give you your state and federal legislators’ names and contact information.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

2009 HB 2343 (also from the Legislature’s webpage). (Note, an engrossed bill has not yet passed both Chambers; an enrolled bill has and awaits the Governor’s signature.)

Compiling a legislative history and determining legislative intent means going beyond what legislators say themselves, to looking at what people say to legislators. Legislative hearings are important to follow, but one also needs to read the reports that are submitted to legislative committees. These are not always online and a trip to the Oregon Legislative Archives to read the bill files, exhibits, and minutes can be a fascinating journey into the legislative process. Nowadays, one can find more of those reports online, from advocacy groups, nonprofits, lobbyists, and others who submit position papers to legislators.

I don’t often catch the excellent Think Out Loud program, but did today, almost in full, wonder of wonders. It was a fascinating look into statutory interpretation and construction. The specific Think Out Loud program was: Change to Oregon Rape Law?

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Can a self-represented (pro se) litigant claim “attorneys fees?”

For a discussion of the meaning of attorneys fees in the context of a pro se litigant’s public records lawsuit, I recommend you read the recently decided (June 17) Colby v. Gunson (A133979) (2009).

Excerpt: “Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to attorney fees and costs under ORS 192.490(3) because he is a “person seeking the right to inspect” public records, and he prevailed in the appeal. Defendant contends that the statutory reference to “attorney fees” includes only fees that are charged to a client under a contractual commitment between an attorney and client and not the value of the time invested in the case by a self-represented client. Our determination of the intended meaning of the term “attorney fees” in ORS 192.490(3) is governed by the method described in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as recently modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, ___ P3d ___ (2009) (examination of the text and context of the statute, and legislative history of the enactment when that history appears useful to the court’s analysis)….
…
ORS 192.409(3) does not require that the attorney fees be “incurred.” The statutory construction issue in this case, then, is whether the bare term “attorney fees” implies that same contractual dynamic–a charge by an attorney that a separate entity is obligated to pay. We determine the legislative intent in the use of particular statutory wording by giving words their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning. Haynes v. Tri-County Metro., 337 Or 659, 663, 103 P3d 101 (2004). In common parlance, “attorney fee” connotes a charge for an attorney’s professional services. Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 833 (unabridged ed 2002) defines “fee” to include “compensation often in the form of a fixed charge for professional service or for special and requested exercise of talent or of skill (as by an artist) (a doctor’s ~) (a lawyer’s retainer ~).” Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary 139 (8th ed 2004) defines “attorney fee” as “[t]he charge to a client for services performed for the client, such as an hourly fee, a flat fee, or a contingent fee.” A “charge,” in turn, arises in a transaction between two persons. Webster’s defines “charge” to mean:…” (read full case!)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

From the Oregon Legislature Clerk of the House website:

“In 1999, the Legislative Assembly adopted ORS 171.022, which reads, “Except as otherwise provided in the Act, an Act of the Legislative Assembly takes effect on January 1 of the year after passage of the Act.”

Some bills contain a clause which specify a particular effective date. Still others may have emergency, sunset, or referendum clauses attached.”

See also previous OLR Blog post on effective dates of legislation.

Contact Information
The information provided on the Oregon Legal Research website and blog is for research purposes only. We do not provide legal advice, nor do we endorse any person, product, or company

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Oregon Legal Research
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design